Water rates will increase across all tiers of consumption. For the first 7 “units” of water, the charge is will increase from $1.35 to $1.40. For the next 21 units, the charge is proposed to increase from $2.85 to $2.96 per unit. And for the 17 units after that, the increase is proposed to be from $4.88 to $5.08. A unit is 100 cubic feet, which is 748 gallons.

Sewer rates will increase from $3.65 to $3.85 per unit. And stormwater fees would increase for all tiers of impervious service. For the middle tier – for more than 2,187 square feet but less than or equal to 4,175 square feet – on a quarterly basis, the increase would be from $24.85 to $26.32.

According to the staff memo accompanying this agenda item, the recommended rate changes in water, sewer, and stormwater would increase revenues to the water, sewer, and stormwater funds by $765,119, $1,171,931 and $410,235 respectively. The reason given for the rate increases is to cover maintenance and debt payments, and to maintain funding for capital improvement requirements. The city calculates the impact to be an additional $6.25 per quarter or $24.98 per year for an average consumer, which is a net increase of 4.2%.

Water consumption for a typical single family is assumed at 19 units per quarter.

History of city of Ann Arbor water rates. The city converted to a tiered system 10 years ago in 2004, based on usage. The 2015 amount is proposed.

Details on the council’s deliberations are provided in The Chronicle’s live updates filed during the meeting.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall located at 301 E. Huron.

Results on the outcome on many individual agenda items can be found published as separate briefs in the Civic News Ticker section of the website. A summary of the FY 2015 budget deliberations will be available here, when its is published: [link]

The council’s second meeting in May is specified in the city charter as the occasion for the council to adopt the city administrator’s proposed budget with any amendments. If the council does not take action by its second meeting in May, the city administrator’s proposed budget is adopted by default. The Chronicle has previously reported a preview of some possible budget amendments: [here].

The sign on the door to the Ann Arbor city council chamber includes Braille.

The council’s May 19 meeting agenda includes more than just the adoption of the budget.

Related to the setting of the annual budget are items like setting fees associated with the public services area (for example, site plan review) and the community services area (for example, farmers market stall fees), as well as rate increases for water, sewer and stormwater utilities.

Also related to the budget – and not just for this next year – is an agenda item that will revise the city’s policies for contributions to the city’s pension system and retiree health care. In broad strokes, those revisions are meant to accelerate contributions during a strong economy and maintain contributions at least at the level of the actuary-recommended amount during weaker economies.

Another budget-related item on the May 19 agenda is one related to the social infrastructure of the community – allocation of general fund money to nonprofits that provide human services. The city approaches this allocation through a process that is coordinated with Washtenaw County, the United Way, the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation and other partners. The total amount allocated for the operation of programs is about $4.3 million. The city of Ann Arbor’s general fund contribution is about $1.2 million, which is the same amount that has been contributed for the last several years.

Related to human services support is an agenda item that would accept a $113,154 planning grant from the Michigan Supreme Court to establish a specialized mental health court.

Along with social infrastructure, the council will also be asked to approve an allocation that includes utilities infrastructure, to address the needs that resulted from the harsh winter. The resolution that the council will consider would allocate money from the fund balance reserves from three sources: $1.7 million from the major street fund, $638,000 from the local street fund, and $666,000 from the water fund. Those amounts include $461,171 from the state of Michigan.

The council will also be asked to approve money for building new physical infrastructure – about $2.6 million for the reconstruction of a segment of Pontiac Trail. The segment stretches north of Skydale Drive to just south of the bridge over M-14/US-23. The street reconstruction project also includes water mains, sanitary sewer, and construction of new sidewalk along the east side of Pontiac Trail, and installation of bike lanes.

Special assessments to pay for three other sidewalk projects also appear on the council’s agenda in various stages of the special assessment process. Those future projects are located on Barton Drive, Scio Church Road, and Newport Road.

The council will be asked to approve the city’s application for federal funding to support the acquisition of development rights in Superior Township for two pieces of property on either side of Vreeland Road. The properties are near other parcels already protected as part of the city’s greenbelt initiative.

The city council will also vote on the confirmation of two appointments: Katherine Hollins to the city’s environmental commission; and Bob White, as a reappointment to his fourth term on the city’s historic district commission.

This article includes a more detailed preview of many of these agenda items. More details on other agenda items are available on the city’s online Legistar system. The meeting proceedings can be followed Monday evening live on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network starting at 7 p.m.

The Chronicle will be filing live updates from city council chambers during the meeting, published in this article below the preview material. Click here to skip the preview section and go directly to the live updates. The meeting is scheduled to start at 7 p.m.

Fees and Rates

On the council’s agenda are rate increases for utilities (water, sewer and stormwater) as well as fee increases for the public services and community services area.

Fees and Rates: Water, Sewer, Stormwater

Water rates are proposed to increase across all tiers of consumption. For the first 7 “units” of water, the charge is proposed to increase from $1.35 to $1.40. For the next 21 units, the charge is proposed to increase from $2.85 to $2.96 per unit. And for the 17 units after that, the increase is proposed to be from $4.88 to $5.08. A unit is 100 cubic feet, which is 748 gallons.

Sewer rates would increase from $3.65 to $3.85 per unit. And stormwater fees would increase for all tiers of impervious service. For the middle tier – for more than 2,187 square feet but less than or equal to 4,175 square feet – on a quarterly basis, the increase would be from $24.85 to $26.32.

According to the staff memo accompanying this item, the recommended rate changes in water, sewer, and stormwater would increase revenues to the water, sewer, and stormwater funds by $765,119, $1,171,931 and $410,235 respectively. The reason given for the rate increases is to cover maintenance and debt payments, and to maintain funding for capital improvement requirements. The city calculates the impact to be an additional $6.25 per quarter or $24.98 per year for an average consumer, which is a net increase of 4.2%.

Water consumption for a typical single family is assumed at 19 units per quarter.

History of city of Ann Arbor water rates. The city converted to a tiered system 10 years ago in 2004, based on usage. The 2015 amount is proposed.

The utility rates are part of a city ordinance. So the council will be considering initial approval at its May 19 meeting, with final approval to come at its first meeting in June – on June 2.

Fees and Rates: Community and Public Services Area

Fee increases in the community services area and the public services area will be considered by the council at its May 19 meeting.

For community services, increases are being proposed for stall fees at the Ann Arbor public market (farmers market). Currently, the basic annual fee for rental of a stall is $300. It’s proposed to be increased to $450 – a 50% increase.

If approved by the council, the fee increase would be projected to generate $26,000 in additional revenue. However, this additional revenue has not been assumed in the proposed FY 2015 budget.

According to the staff memo accompanying the agenda item, “market fees were last increased in 2009 and have not kept pace with the overall increase of annual operating costs during this same time period.” A comparative analysis of Ann Arbor’s fees also showed that Ann Arbor’s fees are well below those of comparable markets.

Comparative chart of stall rental rates, including three in other states. Ann Arbor’s current rate is the leftmost blue bar. Ann Arbor’s proposed market stall rental rate is shown in green. The red horizontal line is the average. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the city of Ann Arbor.)

Comparative chart of stall rental rates, excluding those in other states. Ann Arbor’s current rate is the leftmost blue bar. Ann Arbor’s proposed market stall rental rate is shown in green. The red horizontal line is the average. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the city of Ann Arbor.)

In the public services area, fees for a variety of services are being considered – for such items as site plan review, soil and sedimentation control. According to the staff memo accompanying the agenda item, the increases consider labor, material and supplies, equipment, and overhead cost and are aimed at full cost recovery. The increases are generally in the range of 1% to 5%.

Pension and VEBA Funding Policy

The council will be considering policies for making contributions to the pension and retiree health care plan that is supposed to ensure that the plans are eventually fully funded. The policy would set the funding at the higher of two different figures: (1) the Actuarial Required Contribution (ARC) rate; or (2) the existing level of contributions adjusted for the change in general fund revenues. That would have an impact of establishing a minimum increase in funding of 2% per year.

The operative language in the policy is:

If the General Fund revenues are projected to increase less than 2%, the city’s contribution shall increase 2%; thereby establishing a minimum increase of 2% per year.

Social Infrastructure

The council’s agenda includes two items that can be characterized as funding social infrastructure: the annual general fund allocations to nonprofits that provide human services; and the acceptance of a planning grant for the 15th District Court to establish a mental health court.

Social Infrastructure: Coordinated Funding

The council will be asked at its May 19 meeting to approve funding allocations to nonprofits as part of a coordinated funding approach for human services, in partnership with several other local funders.

The city is one of the original five partners in the coordinated funding approach. Other partners include Washtenaw County, United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Urban County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. It began as a pilot program in 2010.

This year, 105 applications were submitted by 50 local organizations totaling $8,732,389 in requested funding, according to a staff memo. A review committee recommended that 57 programs receive a total of $4,321,494 in available funding. Of that amount, the city is providing $1,244,629.

FY 15       Funding Source                                        
$1,244,629  City of Ann Arbor General Fund                    
$1,760,708  United Way of Washtenaw County                    
$1,015,000  Washtenaw County's General Fund                   
$  274,907  Washtenaw Urban County CDBG funds                 
$   26,250  Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation senior funds 
========== 
$4,321,494  TOTAL

-

The coordinated funding process has three parts: planning/coordination, program operations, and capacity-building. The approach targets six priority areas, and identifies lead agencies for each area: (1) housing and homelessness – Washtenaw Housing Alliance; (2) aging – Blueprint for Aging; (3) school-aged youth – Washtenaw Alliance for Children and Youth; (4) children birth to six – Success by Six; (5) health – Washtenaw Health Plan; and (6) hunger relief – Food Gatherers.

In 2012, TCC Group – a consulting firm based in Philadelphia – was hired to evaluate the process. As a result of that review, several changes were recommended and later authorized by the city council at its Nov. 7, 2013 and by the Washtenaw County board on Nov. 6, 2013. One of those changes is that funding would not necessarily be allocated to the six priority areas based on the proportion of funding allocated in the past. Instead, allocations among the six priority areas would be based on identified community-level outcomes, the strategies that align with them, and how each are prioritized. An additional change would broaden the pre-screening process so that smaller nonprofits could be accommodated.

Funding for this cycle will start on July 1, 2014. In addition, the RNR Foundation – a family foundation that funded TCC Group’s evaluation of the coordinated funding approach – will now be an additional funder in this process.

The RNR Foundation funding will go toward the planning/coordination and capacity building components of the effort, so their funding is not listed among the items in the program operating component.

Here’s a breakdown of how the program operating component of the city of Ann Arbor’s share will be allocated:

   
   FY 2015  Agency
   $20,000  Barrier Busters 
   $30,000  Peace Neighborhood Center
   $35,069  Ozone House Inc.
   $54,168  Domestic Violence Project Inc. dba SafeHouse Center
   $56,396  UM Regents (Community Dental Center, Housing Bureau for Seniors)
   $85,500  Avalon Housing 
   $90,786  Child Care Network
  $102,156  Food Gatherers
  $115,558  The Salvation Army of Washtenaw County
  $122,095  Washtenaw Community Health Organization
  $160,761  Shelter Association of Washtenaw County
  $164,660  Community Action Network
  $207,480  Legal Services of South Central Michigan
$1,244,629  Grand Total

-

That compares with the current fiscal year as follows:

 
  FY 2014   Agency
   $4,561   HIV/AIDS Resource Center     
  $12,772   Washtenaw Association for Community Advocacy     
  $14,282   Planned Parenthood Mid and South Michigan     
  $17,139   Jewish Family Services of Washtenaw County
  $19,835   Barrier Busters     
  $23,719   UM Regents - Ann Arbor Meals on Wheels     
  $27,369   The Women's Center of Southeastern Michigan     
  $63,419   Home of New Vision
  $91,645   Interfaith Hospitality Network of Washtenaw County     
  $94,490   Catholic Social Services of Washtenaw     
  $95,171   Food Gatherers     
 $104,944   Community Action Network
 $109,851   Perry Nursery School of Ann Arbor     
 $142,851   Avalon Housing Inc.     
 $177,052   Services of South Central Michigan
 $245,529   Shelter Association of Washtenaw County
$1,244,629  Grand Total

-

The coordinated funding approach sometimes results in the same programs being funded – but by different funders. This year, the city of Ann Arbor is funding a program for Peace Neighborhood Center; last year Washtenaw County provided funding ($19,995) for Peace Neighborhood Center. And last year, the city of Ann Arbor funded a University of Michigan meals-on-wheels program; this year, United Way is funding that program.

Recipients of funds in one year are not guaranteed funding the following year. An example of that is the Women’s Center of Southeastern Michigan, which received $27,369 from the city of Ann Arbor last year for a mental health program, but is not receiving funds as part of the coordinated funding program this year.

Social Infrastructure: Mental Health Court

The council is being asked to approve the receipt of a planning grant of $113,154 from the Michigan Supreme Court State Court Administrative Office (SCAO) to fund the planning for a mental health court program.

According to the staff memo accompanying the item, mental health courts are problem-solving courts “that focus on therapeutic treatment for offenders with mental illnesses whose crimes are a result of their mental illness.”

The memo continues:

Eligible defendants are diverted into judicially supervised, community-based treatment to address the underlying problems. The program uses a team approach to address the participant’s needs for mental health and/or substance abuse treatment while also linking the participant with ancillary services such as education, housing, job skills or other individualized assistance. The goal is to assist participants in bettering their lives while also benefiting the community by reducing jail time, recidivism rates, and court docket congestion.

The 15th District Court already operates several specialized courts – a sobriety court, a homeless court, veterans court and domestic violence court. The mental health court would be operated in addition to those other specialized courts.

For background on the 15th District Court’s specialized “problem-solving” courts from last year’s Chronicle reporting, see: “Round 1 FY 2014: 15th District Court.”

Physical Infrastructure

Physical infrastructure appears on the council’s May 19 agenda in several forms: an allocation of money to deal with damage to systems from the harsh winter; a Pontiac Trail street reconstruction project; and several sidewalk projects.

Physical Infrastructure: Winter Damage

The council will be asked to approve an allocation that includes utilities infrastructure, to address the needs that resulted from the severe winter weather.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, compared to last year there was a 36% increase in water main breaks and a 950% increase of broken water services. Compared to the previous two years winters, the 2013-14 winter had 272% more snow and a 450% increase in required plowing. That meant additional use of materials like ice-control salt, sand, cold-patch, pipe, repair clamps and fittings – in addition to higher-than-anticipated work hours and overtime, and increased equipment costs.

The resolution the council will consider would allocate money from the fund balance reserves from three sources: $1.7 million from the major street fund, $638,000 from the local street fund, and $666,000 from the water fund. Those amounts include $461,171 from the state of Michigan.

The work will include frozen service line repairs, pavement marking, and road surface repair. The work is not anticipated to be completed until well after June 30, 2014 – the end of the current fiscal year.

At a May 12 city council work session, public services area administrator Craig Hupy presented the council with some data on the age of the city’s piping system, saying that for the water pipes, those that were constructed in 1950s, 1960s and 1970s are more problematic than those built before and after that period. Still, he indicated that the city’s breakage rate was considered low for a system that is as old as Ann Arbor’s.

Ann Arbor Sanitary Sewer System by Year of Construction. (Data from the city of Ann Arbor, chart by The Chronicle)

Ann Arbor Water System by Year of Construction. (Data from the city of Ann Arbor, chart by The Chronicle)

City of Ann Arbor Water Main Breaks by Year. (Data from city of Ann Arbor Comprehensive Annual Financial Report)

Physical Infrastructure: Pontiac Trail

The council will consider two resolutions in connection with a street reconstruction project on Pontiac Trail.

The first is a $2,605,190 contract with Evergreen Civil LLC for construction of the project. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the project includes reconstruction of Pontiac Trail beginning north of Skydale Drive to south of the bridge over M-14/US-23. The project also includes extending water mains and sewer pipes, as well as construction of new sidewalk along the east side of Pontiac Trail, and installation of bike lanes. The memo also indicates the project will include stormwater infiltration trenches, edge drains, and the addition of a small section of curb and gutter. The project is expected to begin in June of 2014 and be completed by fall of 2014.

The other contract to be considered by the council in connection with the Pontiac Trail project is $46,879 for Professional Services Industries Inc. for materials testing.

Responding to a query from The Chronicle, city project manager Nick Hutchinson indicated that the council would be presented at its June 16 meeting with the next in a series of resolutions on special assessment to help fund the sidewalk portion of the Pontiac Trail project. The council had voted at its Jan. 21, 2014 meeting to direct the city administrator to prepare plans, specifications and a cost estimate for the Pontiac Trail sidewalk project. The special assessment process requires the setting of an assessment roll and the holding of a public hearing before a special assessment can be imposed.

Physical Infrastructure: Sidewalks

Three other sidewalk projects that are further along in the special assessment process than Pontiac Trail are also on the council’s May 19 agenda: Barton Road, Scio Church and Newport Road.

Physical Infrastructure: Sidewalks – Newport Road

A public hearing on the Newport Road sidewalk special assessment, which started on May 5, will continue at the council’s May 19 meeting. For the sidewalk segment on Newport Road, the council had approved at its April 21, 2014 meeting a resolution directing the city assessor to prepare a special assessment roll of properties to be assessed. The council took action to set the public hearing on the Newport Road special assessment for May 5.

The total amount to be special assessed for the Newport Road project is $49,746. But residents of the Newport Creek Site Condominium – who would not ordinarily be assessed, as their property isn’t adjacent to the sidewalk – have volunteered to contribute $10,228 to the project to help offset their neighbors’ assessments. Details of that arrangement are being finalized.

However, several residents spoke at the May 5 public hearing, opposing the special assessment.

Newport Road sidewalk stretch.

Physical Infrastructure: Sidewalks – Scio Church

Again on the city council’s May 19 agenda are resolutions to set the assessment roll and set a public hearing (to be held June 16) for the special assessment of a Scio Church Road sidewalk. Action on the Scio Church sidewalk project special assessment had been postponed at the council’s April 21, 2014 meeting until May 19.

For this sidewalk project, the total cost is expected to be $365,100. Of that, about $164,000 will be paid from a federal surface transportation grant. The remaining $201,100 will be paid out of the city’s general fund and by the special assessment of just $1,626. It was the size of the total amount of special assessment that led to the postponement. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) argued at the April 21 meeting that the amount to be assessed was not worth the staff time to follow all the bureaucratic procedures involved in implementing the special assessment. He also called for 80% of any sidewalk project to be funded through non-special assessed funds.

Purple indicates stretches of Scio Church Road where no sidewalk exists.

Physical Infrastructure Sidewalks – Barton Road

On the city council’s May 19 agenda are resolutions to set the assessment roll and a public hearing (to be held on June 16) for the special assessment of a Barton Drive sidewalk. The sidewalk to be special assessed was part of an approval given at the council’s April 21 meeting: The council approved $177,100 of city funds for the construction of the Scio Church Road sidewalk and for an additional sidewalk on Barton Drive.

The cost of the Barton Drive sidewalk has been calculated to be $80,606. Of that, about $36,000 will be paid from federal surface transportation funds. Of the remaining $44,606, the city’s general fund would pay $42,626, leaving just $1,980 to be paid through the special assessment.

Location of proposed Barton Drive sidewalk.

By way of additional background, approval of the design contract for the Barton Drive and Scio Church Road stretches of new sidewalk had been approved by the city council at its March 3, 2014 meeting.

And at its July 15, 2013 meeting, the council had approved $15,000 for preliminary design of a sidewalk along Barton Drive. Even earlier – at its Nov. 19, 2012 meeting – the council approved $15,000 for preliminary study of a sidewalk to be constructed along Scio Church, west of Seventh Street. On Nov. 7, 2013, the council approved another $35,000 for Scio Church sidewalk design work. The design contract for the Barton Drive and Scio Church stretches of new sidewalk drew on the previously authorized funding.

The preliminary planning budget of $15,000 for the Newport Road sidewalk gap was approved over a year ago by the council at its Jan. 23, 2013 meeting.

Greenbelt

At its May 19 meeting, the city council will be asked to consider approval of application to the federal Agricultural Land Easement (ALE) program to protect 260 acres of farmland located in Superior Township. The ALE program now includes what was previously known as the Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP).

The farm parcels consist of property on either side of Vreeland Road, which is currently in agriculture production. Additional properties under the same ownership, adjacent to the farmland parcels, are also being considered for inclusion in the city’s greenbelt program, and the Vreeland Road properties are near other properties already protected as part of the greenbelt – the Meyer Preserve, the Jack R. Smiley Preserve and the Schultz conservation easement. Cherry Hill Nature Preserve is located just north of the property. [.jpg of greenbelt properties as of May 2014]

Here’s a dynamic map of properties outside the city already protected under the city’s greenbelt program. A 30-year open space and parkland preservation millage, which voters approved in 2003, funds both the greenbelt program as well as land acquisition for city parks. The border indicates the area where greenbelt funds can be spent to protect properties.

Appointments

The city council will also vote on the confirmation of two appointments: Katherine Hollins to the city’s environmental commission; and Bob White, as a reappointment for his fourth term on the city’s historic district commission.

Hollins is a staffer with the Great Lakes Commission. She’s being appointed because David Stead’s lengthy service on the commission – dating from 2000, when the commission was established – had generated opposition among some councilmembers. Nominations to the environmental commission are made by the council as a whole, not by the mayor. In offering the substitute nomination, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated in an email to other councilmembers that “David Stead has decided that his life is busy enough he cannot do justice to serving on the commission.”

White was appointed to the historic district commission for his first three-year term in 2005.

4:39 p.m. The staff’s written responses to councilmember questions about agenda items are now available: [.pdf of May 19, 2014 agenda responses]

4:55 p.m. The final versions of possible budget amendments are now available. [.pdf of possible amendments to FY 2015 budget]

6:53 p.m. Pre-meeting activity. The scheduled meeting start is 7 p.m. Most evenings the actual starting time is between 7:10 p.m. and 7:15 p.m.

6:54 p.m. Jack Eaton (Ward 4) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) have arrived. City administrator Steve Powers is also here.

6:56 p.m. McKinley CEO Al Berriz is in attendance. Ann Arbor SPARK CEO Paul Krutko is also here – as he’s signed up to address the council during public commentary. One possible budget amendment is to eliminate $75,000 of annual funding for SPARK in favor of allocating that sum to human services. Skip Simms from SPARK is also here.

6:57 p.m. Eaton is quizzing high school students who are here to satisfy a class requirement. He lobs a softball: Do we live in a democracy or under a dictatorship?

6:58 p.m. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) has now arrived.

6:58 p.m. Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) is also here, talking to people in the audience.

7:02 p.m. Remaining councilmembers are filtering in. Not yet spotted are Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

7:13 p.m. Call to order, moment of silence, pledge of allegiance.

7:13 p.m. Roll call of council. All councilmembers are present and correct.

7:14 p.m. Approval of agenda.

7:16 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) wants to move the LDFA budget amendment to the start of the amendment sequence. Teall moves DS-12 after DS-2. DS-12 is the human services allocation.

7:16 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve its agenda.

7:17 p.m. Communications from the city administrator. City administrator Steve Powers notes that on Memorial Day there will be no garbage pickup. That’s also the day the city pools open.

7:17 p.m. INT-1 Volunteer of Month: First Martin. First Martin Corp is being recognized for the work it did on the roundabout garden at Huron Parkway and Nixon. First Martin also maintains Liberty Plaza downtown and Wheeler Park on Depot Street.

7:17 p.m. Public commentary. This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

Eight people are signed up to speak on the issue of the FY 2015 city budget: Ray Gholston, Greg Pratt, Zoltan Jung, James Billingslea, Marc Bleckmann, Diane Kreger, Paul Krutko, and Tim Marshall. Alan Haber is signed up as an alternate to talk about the budget. Kermit Schlansker is signed up to talk about global warming and poverty. And Thomas Partridge is signed up to talk about the critical need for increased funding for human services and supporting Mark Schauer’s candidacy for governor of Michigan.

7:20 p.m. Thomas Partridge introduces himself as a Ward 5 resident and a recent candidate for various public offices. He’s here to talk about the critical need for affordable housing and affordable transportation. The city has come up with a formula for dividing up money for human services, which is very complicated, he says. Overall there’s not a high enough regard for human services, affordable housing and transportation, education or health services for the most vulnerable residents of the city. He tells the council they need to go back and come up with a better formula to support expanded funding for human services.

7:23 p.m. Ray Gholston introduces himself as a local human rights activist. He thanks the council for its concern and consideration of a resolution that would support a warming center. He says the Delonis Center has been doing a good job for over a decade, but they should not have to shoulder the burden alone.

7:26 p.m. Greg Pratt says he’s excited about Amendment 15, which would mean a $75,000 jump in human services funding. He’s supporting that. There’s been a glut of “corporate” welfare, he says. He allows that subsequent speakers might have a different perspective. But it’s important to have a stream of funds that support those who need it. He also supports Amendment 9, which he describes as “seed money.”

7:28 p.m. Zoltan Jung lives on Barton Drive. He’s talking about traffic calming. He puts it in the context of livability. Many residents have seen their livability decrease due to speeders and reckless drivers. He lives on Northside Avenue where kids can’t play on the street, because people use it as a cut-through. Traffic calming isn’t an end unto itself, he says. On Wells Street, the measures aren’t integrated into the Burns Park Elementary situation, he says. If you put a bump somewhere, that can just displace the problem. So traffic calming can’t be done in isolation.

7:31 p.m. James Billingslea is a Ward 1 resident. He’s speaking on behalf of bicyclists and pedestrians, who use his street. Cars have lost control on nine occasions, he says. His neighbor Joyce had nine cars wind up on her yard in a two-month period this winter, he says. At 25 mph, it takes 23 seconds to go down the entire street. They have to be constantly vigilant. Simply deploying more police officers or deploying traffic calming solutions is not going to solve the problem, he says. Cars are currently designed to help cars travel quickly, he says, not for the benefit of the community.

7:34 p.m. Marc Bleckmann lives on Northside Avenue. His kids attend Northside Elementary, which is a 10-minute walk to the school. But unfortunately that walk can be dangerous. He says that commuters “fly down the hypotenuse” of Northside Avenue when they use it as a cut-through. It’s one of many dangerous pedestrian situations, he says. He calls on the council to improve the livability of Ann Arbor by addressing this kind of problem.

7:35 p.m. Diane Kreger hopes it’s not redundant for the council to hear again from a resident of Northside Avenue. But she supports the budget amendment that would put more money toward traffic calming. [The amendment would reduce public art administration from $80,000 to $40,000 and allocate $40,000 to traffic calming.] She calls for effective traffic calming measures.

7:38 p.m. Paul Krutko is CEO of Ann Arbor SPARK. He discourages the council from passing Amendment 1 and Amendment 15. He points to the partnership among various municipalities that supports SPARK. Last year, the council’s support resulted in $21 million worth of projects and created 752 jobs, he says. He points to the re-occupancy of the former Borders building in downtown Ann Arbor, he says. He’s proud of the business development work SPARK has done, he says.

7:39 p.m. Tim Marshall is not here.

7:41 p.m. Kermit Schlansker says that the conservative’s cure for poverty is to ignore it. The liberal’s solution is to get someone else to pay for it, he says. Neither is a good solution. He calls for land to be made available to poor people so that they can grow their own food. He calls for multi-purpose clusters of people. In the fall, city people should go out and help with the harvest, he says. He describes how the poor can eventually pay off their debt and own their own land. Land should belong to people who till it, not those who mow it, he says.

7:45 p.m. Alan Haber says he’s here to provide his usual alternative view. He’s going to be away for much of the summer, so he won’t be here to remind the council about the importance of the community. It’s important to have a human resource, he says. He feels like he’s not been getting through to the council. Haber is talking about the works of Peter Linebaugh. He wants the council to have a conversation about what a community commons is. It’s not just about the money, it’s about the human part, he says.

7:45 p.m. Communications from the council.

7:47 p.m. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) thanks the city attorney’s office for issuing cease-and-desist letters to Uber and Lyft. There’s a meeting of the taxicab board this Thursday at 8:30 a.m., he says. He offers his condolences to the family that lost one of their own in a fire on Shady Lane last week.

7:48 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) highlights the fact that there are three vacancies on the environmental commission. She encourages people to apply. She also says that housing and human services advisory board also has some vacancies.

7:48 p.m. MC-1 appointments. The council is being asked to confirm the re-appointment of Bob White to the historic district commission for a fourth three-year term.

7:48 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to confirm Bob White’s re-appointment to the historic district commission.

7:48 p.m. MC-2 nominations Larry Eiler is being nominated to the Economic Development Corporation, replacing Daniel Blakemore. Andy Baker-White and Amanda Carlisle are being nominated to the housing and human services advisory board. A vote on their confirmations will come at the council’s next meeting.

7:48 p.m. Public Hearings. All the public hearings are grouped together during this section of the meeting. Any action on the related items comes later in the meeting. There’s no action item associated with tonight’s only public hearing – on a special assessment to be levied to help pay for the a sidewalk along Newport Road. This public hearing is being continued from the council’s previous meeting, when several property owners spoke against it. [For background, see Physical Infrastructure: Sidewalks – Newport Road above.]

7:50 p.m. PH-1 Newport Road sidewalk special assessment. Eric Preisner is a resident of Ward 1, representing the Riverwood subdivision homeowners association. As a group, they’re in support of the proposal. The affirmative vote was 75% in favor, he says.

7:55 p.m. Thomas Partridge says there should be consideration given to some of the property owners, including a church that will be special assessed, he says. Those who have special hardships or circumstances should not be pressed into a one-size-fits-all special assessment, he says.

7:55 p.m. A resident who spoke last time asks to speak. His question is going to be handled by public services area administrator Craig Hupy away from the podium.

7:55 p.m. Consent agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. This meeting’s consent agenda includes:

• CA-1 Approve contract for construction materials testing with Professional Services Industries Inc. for the Pontiac Trail improvements project ($46,879). [For background, see Physical Infrastructure: Pontiac Trail above.]
• CA-2 Street Closing: N. Fourth Avenue and E. Ann Street for the 19th Annual African-American Downtown Festival (Friday, June 6, 2014 to Saturday, June 7, 2014).
• CA-3 Approve April 24, 2014 recommendations of the board of insurance administration.

7:55 p.m. CA-1 Approve contract for construction materials testing with Professional Services Industries Inc. for the Pontiac Trail improvements project ($46,879).

7:56 p.m. Briere says she’s gotten a lot of questions about whether the city monitors the quality of the materials used for street improvement project. This resolution shows that the city does monitor material quality, she says.

7:57 p.m. Outcome: The council has completed its approval of the consent agenda.

7:57 p.m. C-1 Amend Sections 2:63, 2:64, and 2:69 of Chapter 29 (Water, Sewer, and Stormwater Rates). These are the annual rate increases for water, sewer and stormwater. [For background, see Fees and Rates: Water, Sewer, Stormwater above.]

7:59 p.m. Lumm says that the utility rates aren’t something that the council discusses a lot. These increases will increase city revenues by a total of $2.3 million, so it’s worth talking about, she says. There are significant capital needs, she says. She’s comfortable that the increases are needed, she says. Based on her experience on the board of insurance review, it’s clear that the city’s utility infrastructure is aging, she says. This kind of rate increase has been imposed in recent years in an attempt to level out the needed increases, she says.

7:59 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give initial approval to the increases in utility rates.

7:59 p.m. DC-1 Environmental commission appointment. This resolution would appoint Katherine Hollins to the environmental commission. Hollins is a staffer with the Great Lakes Commission.

8:00 p.m. Briere says she has little to add except that Hollins would begin her service on June 1.

8:00 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to appoint Hollins to the environmental commission.

8:00 p.m. DC-2 Authorization to join amicus brief in Deboer v Snyder and Schuette. This resolution follows on a resolution approved at the council’s April 7, 2014 meeting to ask that Gov. Rick Snyder and attorney general Bill Schuette not appeal the ruling of judge Bernard Friedman on the Deboer et al v Richard Snyder et al case – that the Michigan statute on marriage impermissibly discriminates against same-sex couples in violation of the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. This resolution authorizes adding the city of Ann Arbor to a list of municipalities supporting an amicus brief, as the case now is being heard before the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

8:02 p.m. Taylor reminds the public of the council’s previous resolution urging the dropping of the appeal. He says that it’s not surprising that Snyder and Schuette have gone ahead with the appeal. Even though the city is not a litigant, it’s common that parties who will be affected by a decision will weigh in with an amicus brief, he says.

8:02 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to authorize adding Ann Arbor to a list of municipalities supporting the finding that Michigan’s definition of marriage discriminates impermissibly against same-sex couples.

8:02 p.m. DC-3 Remove funding in CIP for city hall reskin. This resolution would recommend to the planning commission that the six-year capital improvement plan for FY 2017 and FY 2018 be revised to remove the $4.4 million that is included for the city hall re-skinning project. The planning commission is the body that approves the CIP. The council has budgetary discretion to fund projects in the CIP or not.

8:03 p.m. By way of background, the “reskin” would eliminate the stairstepped shape of the Larcom Building by dropping the exterior straight down from the top floor, thereby adding square footage to the lower stories.

8:04 p.m. Lumm is arguing that the reskin “might be nice” but that there are other more pressing capital needs.

8:06 p.m. Petersen characterizes the project as mostly cosmetic, although there are some energy efficiency components. She wants to retain those aspects of the project. Lumm says that the kind of amendment that Petersen is indicating isn’t possible because the amounts aren’t known. Hieftje says that this isn’t timely and that there’s a lot on tonight’s agenda. He thinks it should be postponed.

8:09 p.m. Briere notes that the resolution asks the planning commission to remove funding, which it’s not empowered to do. Teall moves for postponement until June 2.

Lumm is arguing for her proposal to remove the reskinning. Kunselman supports the postponement. He characterizes the CIP as a “wish list” and notes that the council controls the funding. He’s not worried about the fact that the reskinning project is in the CIP. The planning commission is putting the CIP together based on its statutory responsibilities, he says.

8:10 p.m. Kunselman says he’s willing to postpone it, but asking the planning commission to remove it doesn’t really do much.

8:10 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone the item on the city hall reskinning until June 2.

8:10 p.m. Opposition to oil drilling. This resolution would oppose the oil exploration and drilling proposed by West Bay Exploration under MDEQ permit application #AI40053. The drilling would not take place inside the city limits, as the city is empowered by the state to prohibit drilling, which it does through the city code. However, the location in Scio Township is within two miles from the city limits and less than a mile from the Huron River, which is the source of the majority of the city’s drinking water.

The state zoning enabling act, as revised in 2006, deprives townships and counties of the ability to regulate drilling. Opposition to the drilling is grounded in concerns about the impact on the drinking water supply of the city, especially in the context of a 1,4 dioxane plume in the area of the proposed drilling activity.

In addition to expressing opposition to the proposed drilling in the shorter term and in the future, the text of the resolution requests that the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality require an environmental impact assessment, including impacts to surrounding natural resources and public health, before making a decision. Further, the resolution calls on state legislators to revise the state’s zoning enabling act to provide townships and counties with the power to regulate drilling activity.

8:11 p.m. Warpehoski, the resolution’s sponsor, is providing the context of this item. He has consulted with community activists and notes that city administrator Steve Powers has sent a letter to the MDEQ. He’s reviewing the specific content of the resolution.

8:13 p.m. Warpehoski notes that the city has language in its city code prohibiting drilling, but townships don’t have the power to enact such a prohibition. He says he considered putting off the resolution, given the full agenda tonight, but the time constraints of the permitting process were fairly tight, he said. Taylor offers remarks in support of the resolution.

8:13 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted approve the resolution in opposition to drilling.

8:13 p.m. DB-1 Approve grant applications for USDA support for purchase of development rights (PDR). This resolution would approve application to the federal Agricultural Land Easement (ALE) program to protect 260 acres of farmland located in Superior Township. The ALE program now includes what was previously known as the Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP). The farm parcels consist of property on either side of Vreeland Road, which is currently in agriculture production. [For background, see Greenbelt above.]

8:15 p.m. Taylor, who serves on the greenbelt advisory commission, is describing the content of the resolution. He says it’s a very useful and important source of funds to help leverage the city’s greenbelt dollars. Lumm asks that a map be provided – which it turns out was added late. Lumm asks if the city anticipates other funding sources besides the federal grant and city greenbelt funds. Community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl says that Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation and Superior Township might contribute funds.

8:15 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the grant application to the USDA program for purchase of development rights in connection with the city’s greenbelt program and properties in Superior Township.

8:15 p.m. DS-1 Scio Church sidewalk special assessment resolution No. 2 ($1,626.00). This resolution would direct the preparation of the special assessment roll. [For background, see Physical Infrastructure: Sidewalks – Scio Church above.]

8:17 p.m. Kunselman says this had been postponed so that the city attorney could provide some clarification on equity issues. He’s willing to support this, but says it’s foolish to be special assessing that small an amount. City attorney Stephen Postema says that that analysis was provided to the council. He says the de minimus issue Kunselman had asked about is not a recognized method of dealing with an exception.

8:20 p.m. Lumm says that even though it’s a small amount, the city needs to be consistent and the rules need to be followed. She doesn’t know what to do about situations where a federal grant is available for some cases and not others. Eaton says that the legal analysis was actually that there’s no case law that’s on point. He says that the houses that haven’t had a sidewalk for some time wouldn’t suffer a detriment. The whole neighborhood is getting a benefit, and the three properties that are being special assessed would not get a special benefit, he says.

8:20 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to direct preparation of the assessment roll for the Scio Church sidewalk project, over the lone dissent of Eaton.

8:20 p.m. DS-2 Scio Church sidewalk special assessment resolution No. 3 (set public hearing). This resolution would set the public hearing on the Scio Church sidewalk special assessment for June 16, 2014.

8:20 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to set a public hearing on the Scio Church sidewalk special assessment for June 16, 2014.

8:21 p.m. DS-12 Approve FY 2015 and FY 2016 allocations to non-profit entities for human services ($1,244,629). This year, 105 applications were submitted by 50 local organizations totaling $8,732,389 in requested funding, according to a staff memo. A review committee recommended that 57 programs receive a total of $4,321,494 in available funding. Of that amount, the city is providing $1,244,629. [For background, see Social Infrastructure: Coordinated Funding above.]

8:23 p.m. Lumm is thanking staff and everyone who worked so hard on this. There’s a very robust and through process in place to ensures that money flows to those in most need. Teall says it’s a very complex process and not everybody will end up happy. Mary Jo Callan and Andrea Plevek – staff with the county’s office of community and economic development – are at the podium to describe the process of coordinated funding.

8:24 p.m. Callan is noting that there was a little less funding this year, with a lot more requests for a lot more money.

8:25 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the human services allocations made through the coordinated funding process.

8:25 p.m. DS-3 Award contract to Evergreen LLC for Pontiac Trail Improvements Project ($2,605,190). According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the project includes reconstruction of Pontiac Trail beginning north of Skydale Drive to south of the bridge over M-14/US-23. The project also includes extending water mains and sewer pipes, as well as construction of new sidewalk along the east side of Pontiac Trail, and installation of bike lanes. The memo also indicates the project will include stormwater infiltration trenches, edge drains, and the addition of a small section of curb and gutter. The project is expected to begin in June of 2014 and be completed by fall of 2014. [For background, see Physical Infrastructure: Pontiac Trail above.]

8:26 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to award the contract to Evergreen LLC for the Pontiac Trail improvement project.

8:26 p.m. DS-4 Appropriate funds from major street ($1,700,000), local street ($638,000), and water funds ($666,000) to address severe winter expenses and damage. This resolution would allocate money needed to pay for added expenses resulting from the severe winter. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, compared to last year there was a 36% increase in water main breaks and a 950% increase of broken water services.

Compared to the previous two years winters, the 2013-14 winter had 272% more snow and a 450% increase in required plowing. That meant additional use of materials like ice-control salt, sand, cold-patch, pipe, repair clamps and fittings – in addition to higher-than-anticipated work hours and overtime, and increased equipment costs. The resolution the council will consider would allocate money from the fund balance reserves from three sources: $1.7 million from the major street fund, $638,000 from the local street fund, and $666,000 from the water fund. Those amounts include $461,171 from the state of Michigan. [For background, see Physical Infrastructure: Winter Damage above.]

8:29 p.m. Briere says that her understanding is that this money comes from fund balance. City administrator Steve Powers tells Briere that over $400,000 came from the state of Michigan through an emergency appropriation. Craig Hupy says that there were more than 100 water main breaks but that still puts Ann Arbor in the better half of municipalities. Lumm says that the council knew this was coming but didn’t know what the price tag would be.

8:31 p.m. Kunselman says he appreciates the description of the water main breaks as “average” but he wants to know about the geographic distribution of those breaks. He wants to know if the breaks were in the areas where the mains were built in the 1950s and 1960s. Hupy says that analysis hasn’t been done. Kunselman says he wants to see the geographic distribution of the breaks.

8:32 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to allocate the additional funds from various sources to cover the expenses associated with the severe winter.

8:32 p.m. DS-5 Approve mental health court planning grant contract ($113,154). The council is being asked to approve the receipt of a planning grant of $113,154 from the Michigan Supreme Court State Court Administrative Office (SCAO) to fund the planning for a mental health court program. According to the staff memo accompanying the item, mental health courts are problem-solving courts “that focus on therapeutic treatment for offenders with mental illnesses whose crimes are a result of their mental illness.” The 15th District Court already operates several specialized courts – a sobriety court, a homeless court, veterans court and domestic violence court. The mental health court would be operated in addition to those other specialized courts.

8:33 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the planning grant for a mental health court.

8:33 p.m. DS-6 Barton Drive sidewalk special assessment resolution No. 2 ($1,980). This resolution would set the special assessment roll for the Barton Drive sidewalk project. [For background, see Physical Infrastructure Sidewalks – Barton Road above.]

8:37 p.m. Briere wants to note that much of the cost is being borne by the city and federal government, but there’s a small assessment for owners on Barton Drive. This is something that people in the Northside neighborhood have been demanding for a long time, she says. Kunselman says he’s appreciative of the fact that the city and federal funds are covering much of the cost. The resulting amount of the special assessment is very small and it’s just a couple of parcels that are carrying the burden for a greater community benefit, he says. For the next meeting, he’ll be requesting that the city come back and pay for the Barton and the Scio Church special assessments.

8:37 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to direct the setting of the assessment roll for the Barton Drive sidewalk project.

8:37 p.m. DS-7 Barton Drive sidewalk special assessment resolution No. 3 (set a public hearing). This resolution would set the public hearing on the Barton Drive sidewalk special assessment for June 16, 2014.

8:38 p.m. Briere makes two points. She’d like to have a longer discussion about whether it’s rational for the city to special assess individual property owners for a larger community benefit. She also asks that the wording be corrected to fix a copy-paste error.

8:38 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to set a public hearing on the Baron Drive sidewalk special assessment for June 16, 2014.

8:38 p.m. DS-8 Adopt revised funding policies for pension and VEBA. The council will be considering policies for making contributions to the pension and retiree health care plan that are supposed to ensure that the plans are eventually fully funded. The policy would set the funding at the higher of two different figures: (1) the Actuarial Required Contribution (ARC) rate; or (2) the existing level of contributions adjusted for the change in general fund revenues. That would have an impact of establishing a minimum increase in funding of 2% per year.

8:39 p.m. Lumm is reviewing the content of the resolution and how the minimum contribution is 2%. She says she supports this resolution 110%.

8:40 p.m. Kailasapathy notes that there’s about $100 million in unfunded pension liability and about $160 million in unfunded VEBA. So this is an important resolution, she says.

8:40 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to adopt the revised funding policies for the pension and VEBA plans.

8:40 p.m. DS-9 Approve FY 2015 fee adjustments for public services area. These are the fees in the areas of project management, systems planning, field operations and customer service.

8:41 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the fee adjustments for the public services area.

8:41 p.m. DS-10 Approve FY 2015 fee adjustments for community services area. The proposed increase this year involves raising farmers market fees. [For background, see Fees and Rates: Community and Public Services Area above.]

8:43 p.m. Lumm focuses on the increases for the stall rental at the farmers market. She’s concerned about the impact on vendors. She calls the staff analysis of the comparative rates at other markets very helpful. She says that the process was followed correctly. She’ll support this, but still has some concerns, she says.

8:43 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the fee adjustments for the community services area.

8:43 p.m. Recess.

8:50 p.m. Here’s a number list of possible amendments the council will consider when the meeting resumes. [.pdf of possible FY 2015 budget amendments]

8:55 p.m. Jane Lumm is passing out Keebler cheese and crackers to colleagues during the break.

8:58 p.m. We’re back.

8:58 p.m. DS-11 Adopt FY 2015 city budget. For background on the budget and possible amendments, see: “Budget Debate Preview: Cops, Leaves.” For final versions of possible amendments to the budget – numbered in a way that councilmembers will likely reference during tonight’s deliberations – see: [.pdf of possible FY 2015 budget amendments]

9:01 p.m. Budget amendment: LDFA, Ann Arbor SPARK. This proposal would eliminate some increases in the budget of the local development finance authority (LDFA) – of $30,000 in incubator operating expense, $20,000 in direct staffing expense, and a $75,000 increase to Ann Arbor SPARK’s marketing plan. So the resolution would decrease the expenditure by $165,379 to the prior year’s level of $1,814,892. The unspent funds would instead be reserved for “future infrastructure improvements.” (Kailasapathy, Eaton, Anglin)

9:03 p.m. Kailasapathy is reviewing how the LDFA funding has increased as a result of the TIF (tax increment finance) capture. She says that SPARK has had a 70% increase in funding from the LDFA in the last few years.

9:04 p.m. For Kailasapathy, government is all about sharing, she says. When there’s additional windfall revenue, that should be shared, she says.

9:05 p.m. The money should be used for community-based development like high-speed telecommunications. She’s only asking that the budget be capped at $1.814 million, with the rest to be used for infrastructure that will benefit the community, including startups. She’s not taking all their money away, she says.

9:07 p.m. Eaton will support this. Setting aside some of the new TIF capture is consistent with the LDFA foundational documents, which highlight the possibility of adding infrastructure – in the form of high-speed fiber connections. If we want downtown to be a high-tech center, he says, it’s something that could be aimed for. This could be a good start, he says.

9:09 p.m. Petersen says she feels like this budget amendment misses the point. The revenue should be going up, if the LDFA is doing its job. The reason why the LDFA is getting more is because they are giving more, she says. With respect to the fund balance, it’s an incremental increase of $415,000, and the LDFA had decided only $165,000 would go to SPARK and the rest would go to the LDFA fund balance. If there’s a specific recommendation the council wants to make, she’d like to see that as a separate resolution.

9:10 p.m. Anglin notes that earlier in the meeting, utility fees went up for residents. The LDFA is being asked to support infrastructure improvements, he says.

9:12 p.m. Taylor says SPARK is an entity we’re fortunate to have, and SPARK does good things for entrepreneurs and growth. He doesn’t believe the proposal is wise and thinks that SPARK should be given as many resources that they can be legally provided to continue their work.

9:14 p.m. Hieftje gets clarification from Petersen that she’d like a resolution from the city council simply recommending that the LDFA pursue a high-speed fiber network. Petersen indicates that the LDFA board has not gotten to that level of granularity. High-speed fiber is one option, she says. She would love to see a resolution from the council directing the use of fund balance for high-speed fiber. [Petersen serves as the council representative to the LDFA board.]

9:15 p.m. Lumm thinks that the direction Petersen is talking about could be incorporated into this amendment. Lumm notes that the economic collaborative task force, which Petersen led, recommends investment in a high-speed fiber network.

9:15 p.m. Lumm is working on a possible revision to the amendment.

9:17 p.m. Eaton says that the language Lumm is trying to add is already in the last resolved clause – so he doesn’t think Lumm’s revision is necessary. Briere asks for someone from the LDFA to come forward.

9:20 p.m. Carrie Leahy, the chair of the LDFA board, and former councilmember Stephen Rapundalo, who’s a member of the LDFA board, are at the podium to field questions. They’re describing how the LDFA relies on SPARK to provide required reporting, that could be driven by the extension of the LDFA (by 5 or 15 years). SPARK had asked for additional marketing funding to market the message of the LDFA to the community.

9:21 p.m. Rapundalo says that the additional money is in response to growing demand. They’ve heard that the message is not getting out enough throughout the entrepreneurial community what the LDFA has to offer.

9:23 p.m. Rapundalo says the LDFA has considered infrastructure needs nearly every year. When the city was applying for the Google Fiber initiative, LDFA had promised $250,000 if the city had been awarded the Google grant. There has not been much demand for the infrastructure, he says, but rather on the programming side.

9:26 p.m. CFO Tom Crawford is clarifying that what the council can do is affect the bottom line of the budget, but not the individual expenditures. Briere ventures that about 60% of the “windfall” is already being reserved in the fund balance. Rapundalo says the board has been judicious over the years. He says that the LDFA has not always acceded to SPARK’s requests.

9:29 p.m. Eaton asks if there have been any infrastructure projects over the years. Rapundalo points to the possibility that the LDFA entertained with the Google Fiber initiative. He also characterizes incubator space as infrastructure, but Eaton appears not to accept that as “infrastructure” in the sense that it’s meant in the LDFA foundational documents.

9:31 p.m. Lumm is returning to the topic of the economic collaborative task force and the inclusion of high-speed fiber in the final report of that group.

9:32 p.m. Hieftje says that the council should follow Petersen’s suggestion to pass a resolution at the next meeting to ask the LDFA to work on a high-speed fiber network.

9:33 p.m. Outcome: The council has rejected this amendment on the LDFA by a 5-6 vote. Voting for it were Eaton, Kailasapathy, Kunselman, Lumm, and Anglin.

9:35 p.m. Budget amendment: Human Services, SPARK. This proposal would eliminate the city general fund allocation of $75,000 to Ann Arbor SPARK and put that money toward human services. (Kailasapathy, Eaton, Anglin)

9:35 p.m. Eaton is arguing for this amendment, saying that the $75,000 is a pittance compared to the amount SPARK receives from the LDFA. He also points to increased funding SPARK has received from the county – through Act 88.

9:37 p.m. Kailasapathy is contrasting this amendment with a different one on the list that would form a warming center from money drawn from the affordable housing trust fund. She calls Briere’s approach a status quo approach – taking money from a needy population and giving it to a different needy population. So she prefers that this amendment on SPARK pass. She appeals to councilmembers to support this because it’s not a big amount for SPARK but is a big deal for a population that needs to be taken care of.

9:38 p.m. Anglin says that back in 2008, many nonprofits disappeared. SPARK should share some of what they have for those who are less fortunate, he says. Economic development goes with social development, he says.

9:42 p.m. Petersen has invited Tim Marshall – chair of SPARK’s board and CEO of the Bank of Ann Arbor – to the podium to explain the difference between the LDFA funding of SPARK and the city’s funding of SPARK. The difference, he says, is that the LDFA is funded through the state. That’s the entrepreneurial side. The $75,000 goes for attraction and retention, he says. Attraction and retention requires skilled people, he says. You can’t say that SPARK should lose on the general fund contribution because it won on the LDFA side. He claims that the return on the investment is about one job for every $100 of investment.

9:44 p.m. Petersen says that the $75,000 is the only line item in the budget that is solely dedicated to economic development, and given that the council has said that’s a priority, she doesn’t know why the council would eliminate that funding. She’s now reviewing what the scope of services is that SPARK provides.

9:46 p.m. Petersen says that the council has gotten 752 new jobs for its $75,000. SPARK does not just share the wealth, it creates wealth, Petersen says. When SPARK helps to occupy empty buildings, that increases the value of the property and that increases revenue to the city, Petersen says.

9:48 p.m. Prompted by Lumm, Marshall is explaining the difference between the city’s general fund contribution to SPARK and the LDFA funding of SPARK.

9:55 p.m. Kunselman goes back to the $250,000 that comes from the county, which Eaton had mentioned. Marshall acknowledges that contribution and calls it a wonderful private-public collaboration. He says there are about 35-40 private companies, including his own Bank of Ann Arbor, that contribute to SPARK.

SPARK CEO Paul Krutko says that Saline, Dexter, Chelsea, Ypsilanti, Superior Township and Ypsilanti Township all make contributions. Kunselman asks about expansion to other areas – to Livingston County. With all the contributors, how does the city of Ann Arbor know that Ann Arbor is priority one? Marshall says that you have to look at the report card every year. Are there winners and losers every year? Kunselman asks. Krutko says that it’s a regional issue – the boundaries are not important, he says. This region is in competition with the rest of the world, he says.

9:55 p.m. Eaton asks if SPARK has ever had an independent audit of its jobs claims.

9:59 p.m. No, says Krutko. But SPARK has had independent audits of it finances. Eaton says he’s troubled that SPARK only recently provided those financial audits. Why is it so hard to get information from SPARK – on finances or on audited jobs figures? Eaton asks. Krutko says that this region has outperformed every other region in the country.

10:00 p.m. Kailasapathy asks for the amounts that the other municipalities contribute. Krutko doesn’t have that information, but can get it to Kailasapathy later. She comes back with: “We vote today!”

10:04 p.m. Krutko is describing SPARK’s approach as creative – because it combines entrepreneurial support, with retention and attraction, and marketing. Petersen is now describing the activity of the economic development collaborative task force. That task force is done and the next step is to form a policy group, she says.

10:06 p.m. Kunselman suggests reducing the amount to $50,000, so that $25,000 would be available for human services. That’s the amendment that’s on the floor. Kunselman says he’s not an expert on economic development, but he’s a keen observer of his surroundings. He ventures that most of the growth in jobs is simply backfilling existing space. Most of the activity is driven by the University of Michigan, Kunselman says.

10:07 p.m. Kunselman is willing to support SPARK’s retention efforts and recognizes the importance of being a good partner. He appreciates the county’s contribution.

10:11 p.m. Petersen responds to Kunselman’s remark about backfilling commercial properties. When that happens outside the DDA district, that incremental revenue goes to the general fund. Kunselman responds by saying that’s a broad statement. When a commercial building becomes vacant, the taxes are not automatically decreased, he points out. To say that the development that backfills property space adds to taxable value isn’t necessarily true, Kunselman says. He ventures that the real property tax for the Borders property downtown did not decrease when it went vacant.

10:14 p.m. Taylor calls this an unwise proposal. The city needs to make sure that the city is supportive of SPARK. The city should not freeload, he says. To pull money out is penny-wise and pound-foolish. Warpehoski notes that it’s the Red Queen dilemma – the city needs to run as fast as it can just to stay in place. He shares some of Eaton’s concerns about SPARK’s transparency. For the $75,000, Warpehoski feels like it’s a worthwhile investment. So he’ll oppose the amendment.

10:17 p.m. Briere says that this particular amendment is emblematic about why she doesn’t like to defund one thing to fund another thing. She notes that the discussion so far has not focused at all on the need to increase funding for human services – because it’s focused only on SPARK. If human services is a value, that’s what the council should be talking about. She’d spoken to Kailasapathy about the need to have additional money for human services. The way the resolution reads now, she says, is that it would put $25,000 toward a warming center. That would not work, she says.

10:20 p.m. Briere says she can see a lot of positive impacts. She can’t attribute it all to SPARK, but she feels like SPARK plays a role in that. She feels like the human services part was like a poker chip, and that the real intent was to defund SPARK. Teall agrees that it’s all about defunding SPARK and not about human services. She’s frustrated that councilmembers don’t see the connection between the increased economic activity and the ability of the city to fund those things it wants to fund. “A rising tide lifts all boats,” she says. She also has an issue with the idea that Ann Arbor is competing with other communities and ventures that Kunselman has a very strong competitive nature.

10:23 p.m. Hieftje pleads with the council to move to a vote, saying that at this rate we’ll be here until breakfast. Lumm wants another turn. She says no one would be against economic development. Lumm wonders how much of the economic development SPARK is responsible for.

10:25 p.m. Eaton says it’s not an effort to defund SPARK, pointing out that SPARK is going to receive a lot of money. He points out that SPARK will still get the $50,000 from the general fund (as revised by Kunselman) and Ann Arbor residents pay the county’s Act 88 tax as well, he points out.

10:26 p.m. Outcome: The council has rejected this amendment on SPARK by a 5-6 vote. Voting for it were Eaton, Kailasapathy, Kunselman, Lumm, and Anglin.

10:27 p.m. Budget amendment: Police staffing – decrease. This proposal would increase the number of sworn officers by two officers instead of three, with the savings allocated to human services for the purpose of drug treatment and prevention. (Chuck Warpehoski)

10:29 p.m. Warpehoski is recounting his conversation with Jim Balmer of Dawn Farms on the topic of opiate abuse. He’s relating a vignette about someone he knows who sought treatment and had no resources in the city to which he could appeal.

10:30 p.m. Teall asks for Mary Jo Callan, director of community & economic development for the county and city, to approach the podium. Teall wants Callan to talk about how the funds could be allocated for treatment. Callan indicates there’s definitely a need.

10:35 p.m. Eaton wants to know how many people could be housed with $95,000. Callan says that the money might also be used for staff. The AADL and PORT don’t have the staff to deal with all the people who are in need. So one option would be to have a robust presence at the library. One possibility is temporary housing in the form of hotel rooms as a bridge to something more permanent. Callan allows that $95,000 will not solve the problem. It could pay for some staffing and some treatment, and some hotel nights. It would need to be leveraged with other resources, she says.

10:37 p.m. Briere says that, for example, an additional $20,000 for Catholic Social Services could make a big impact – like it could for any of the human services nonprofits.

10:38 p.m. Lumm tells Callan she has huge respect and admiration for her. But she won’t support this amendment. She’s reviewing what the impact would be.

10:39 p.m. This amendment is 180 degrees opposite of the direction the city should be going, Lumm says.

10:41 p.m. Kunselman asks Callan how many people are seeking heroin addiction treatment voluntarily versus through a court order. Callan doesn’t know, but can get that information. Kunselman says he won’t support this resolution. He says that it’s naive to think that people will seek treatment just because someone is there at the library to do outreach.

10:43 p.m. Petersen says she’s struggling to support this. Substance abuse and mental health issues are important, but she’s reluctant to reduce the number of police officers to fund it.

10:45 p.m. Kailasapathy says there’s $235,000 in the fund balance that can be used for treatment and education. She allows that it’s campaign season again and as she talks to people at doors, they don’t talk about crime. They talk about other issues, like trucks speeding down their streets causing their foundations to rattle.

10:45 p.m. It’s hard to make these kinds of choices, Kailasapathy says. But she won’t support taking money from the “underfunded police.” She’s really sorry, though.

10:47 p.m. Teall says she’s going to address Petersen’s concerns. This amendment is going to help the police, she says. It will fund someone to do outreach work that a police officer can’t do, she says.

10:48 p.m. There’s need for outreach on a level that a beat cop can’t do, Teall says. There’s such a need in the community, she adds, and crime is down.

10:50 p.m. Eaton says his recollection was that police chief Seto’s request for additional police officers was not based on the increase in heroin cases. It was based on a broad community need for various kinds of community engagement, he says.

10:51 p.m. Hieftje pleads that the council move to a vote, saying that no one will say anything new on this topic.

10:52 p.m. Outcome: The council has rejected this amendment on 2-9 vote. Voting for it were Warpehoski and Teall.

10:53 p.m. The council has suspended its rule on starting closed sessions before 11 p.m.

10:53 p.m. We’re now in recess.

10:58 p.m. Mayor Hieftje has been ill and his voice is not particularly strong tonight.

11:00 p.m. Hieftje is rounding people up.

11:00 p.m. We’re back.

11:01 p.m. Budget amendment: Community-facing climate action programs. Money for “community-facing” climate action programs would come in part from $50,000 allocated for the Ellsworth Road corridor study. (Taylor, Teall, Hieftje, Warpehoski)

11:03 p.m. Taylor says that Ann Arbor has an ambitious long-range climate action plan. It’s a present and immediate necessity. The energy commission has identified this as a need. The city administrator had been queried how much it would take to get things off the ground: about $125,000. We can’t stop climate change with action in Ann Arbor, Taylor says, but the city must do its part. This is a step in that direction, he says.

11:06 p.m. Briere says that she thinks she knows what “community-facing” means, but asks Taylor to explain that. He says that much of the effort to date has been inward facing towards the city itself and its own buildings and vehicles. This would involve talking to residents and business owners, he says. Kunselman ventures that this would involve hiring a contractor. Powers indicates that’s right: It would involve going out for an RFP (request for proposals) to specify deliverables.

Kunselman says he’s not interested in hiring a consultant at this time. Lumm also indicates that she’s not supporting this, either. She indicates that it basically amounts to an additional position of some fashion.

11:07 p.m. Kailasapathy echoes Lumm’s sentiments – that she’ll support a different amendment, to hire an additional forester. She talks about “consultant fatigue.” She allows that global warming is real, and trees are a good solution to reducing greenhouse gases.

11:08 p.m. Anglin also indicates that he’d rather support something that involves trees – in our immediate environment.

11:12 p.m. Eaton also says he’d prefer to support the amendment on adding a forester. Hieftje says that the climate action program would be far more than what a forester would do. He points to the PACE program, which might have an impact on multifamily housing energy efficiency. This amendment could make a big difference, Hieftje says.

11:14 p.m. Briere asks if additional support is anticipated to be needed next year, or if by next fiscal year it would be self-supporting. He figures that nobody expects the forester position to become self-supporting. Powers says the goal of the climate action programs would be that they’d be self-supporting.

11:15 p.m. Eaton asks what this amendment actually does. Taylor says that there’s no reference to the FTE in the resolution. It’s not to hire an FTE. It’s anticipated that it would be a contractor.

11:19 p.m. Eaton asks if the city would start charging fees to make the program self-supporting. Powers says that he doesn’t have that level of detail tonight. Taylor ventures that there would be grant funding. In the future, if the economic climate improves, he hopes to be able to transition from a contractor to an FTE.

11:19 p.m. Hieftje asks that it move to a vote.

11:19 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved this amendment on 6-5 vote. Voting for it were Warpehoski, Teall, Petersen, Briere, Taylor and Hieftje.

11:20 p.m. Teall floats the idea of recessing the meeting until Tuesday, splitting the meeting into two parts. Brief discussion ensues but councilmembers decide they’ll push through the rest of the amendments.

11:21 p.m. Budget amendment: Police staffing – increase. This proposal would increase the number of sworn police officers by five officers instead of an increase of three proposed by the city administrator. Funding would come in part from a reduction in the 15th District Court budget. The resolution would also reiterate a previous request made last year that the DDA fund three downtown beat cops. (Lumm, Eaton, Kailasapathy, Anglin)

11:21 p.m. Lumm is reviewing her reasons for wanting to increase the number of police officers by more than the three that the proposed budget calls for.

11:24 p.m. Lumm is arguing that the 15th District Court has not been as fiscally responsible as other departments. She’s proposing to fund a portion of the increased cost through a reduction in the court’s budget. She’s also anticipating additional money from the state through state shared revenue.

11:24 p.m. Hieftje is commenting on the idea of comparing the size of police departments in the 1980s and 1990s to current levels. He points to the 55 sworn officers that the University of Michigan now employs that did not previously exist.

11:27 p.m. Police departments were built up to respond in the past to increased levels of crime, he says. But now those levels have decreased. When police officer time is measured, Hieftje points out, they do have a lot of time available for proactive policing. He doesn’t want to put the budget under strain based on revenues that have not yet materialized. He returns to the point of decreasing crime numbers. He doesn’t understand why the goal would be to have a police force at the same level that the city did in a previous era.

11:29 p.m. Eaton says the city is fortunate to have police chief John Seto. Seto is not telling the council that the city has a crime problem, Eaton says. Seto has said the additional three officers are a “good start” toward accomplishing what Seto wants to do in terms of traffic enforcement and community engagement. Adding three officers does not take staffing levels back to the levels of the 1990s or even 2009, Eaton says. It’s an incremental step in the right direction.

11:32 p.m. Teall says she didn’t hear Seto say there were more police officers needed, but rather it was true that more could always be done. She won’t support this. Taylor says he won’t support this amendment, either. He’ll support the additional three police officers, but he rejects the idea that failing to support an additional two officers means a lack of priority on public safety. He points out that after pass-throughs, 57% of the city’s general fund goes to public safety.

11:35 p.m. Taylor is referring to an email from chief judge Libby Hines that rejected the idea that the 15th District Court was not a good steward of public money. The court administrator, Shryl Samborn, is at the podium. She’s talking about the ways the 15th District Court has reduced costs. More police officers means more citations, which would require more court clerks, she points out.

11:38 p.m. Lumm is responding to the court’s cost cutting, tracing the 7% and 9% and 4% general fund increases the court has shown. The court had authorized significant pay increases well above what other city employees had received, she says. Responding to the idea that UM officers should be factored into the equation, Lumm says the UM officers don’t see their job as policing the broader community. “They are not our backup,” she says.

11:41 p.m. Kunselman says that as much as he’d like to support it, he won’t support it. It’s important to work within the city administrator’s budget as much as possible. He’s not confident that the recurring revenues will actually be there, so he feels a little “queasy” about adding police officers. He says he had proposed no amendments, because he was very happy with the city administrator’s budget – because Powers had listened to the council about what it wanted to see.

11:44 p.m. Anglin says that there will be more police required as more people use public transportation. Warpehoski tries to move the council to a vote.

11:45 p.m. Outcome: The council has rejected this amendment on 4-7 vote. Voting for it were Lumm, Eaton, Anglin and Kailasapathy.

11:48 p.m. Budget amendment: Compost/leaf program – restore. This proposal would restore loose leaf collection in the fall and holiday tree pickup in the winter. This would require roughly $406,000 in capital investment and $319,500 in recurring expenses from the millage-supported solid waste fund. (Lumm, Eaton, Kailasapathy, Anglin)

11:48 p.m. Lumm notes that she’s brought forward this amendment the last two years and allows that people might be wondering: When will she give up? She says that she’d give up if she did not hear continually from residents that this is a service that they really use and expect the city to provide. She’s reciting the standard arguments in favor.

Petersen says that as much as she’d like to support this, she thinks that the city should not go back to the old way of doing things, because it was too inefficient. That’s not an appropriate way to restore the service. She mentions vacuum trucks as a possibility.

11:49 p.m. Hieftje says that leaves don’t come down on schedule. Cities across the state have moved away from the old way, he says. The current approach using containers is not perfect but it does work ok, he says.

11:53 p.m. Briere won’t support this restoration of fall leaf collection. She’s advocated for year-round composting because she thinks there are some years when leaves need to be set out after the first of December. Briere is recycling familiar arguments.

11:55 p.m. Lumm is arguing environmental points.

11:56 p.m. Lumm is using the Ann Arbor Newshawks in support of her argument for loose collection. She describes following a truck on its collection route.

11:58 p.m. Warpehoski raises a point of order on the length of Lumm’s speaking time.

12:00 a.m. Kunselman says he won’t support this. He’s not sure the solid waste fund reserve won’t be needed in the future. The last thing he wants to see is the solid waste millage go up. He doesn’t want to tinker with the city administrator’s budget.

12:01 a.m. Outcome: The council has rejected this amendment on 4-7 vote. Voting for it were Lumm, Eaton, Anglin and Kailasapathy.

12:01 a.m. Budget amendment: Retirement plan. This proposal directs the city administrator to develop a revised retirement plan design for new hires that “includes a defined contribution element and results in lower costs to the city.” The new plan design would be presented to the council by Dec. 31, 2014, with the intent that the revised plan would be applied to all employees hired after Dec. 31, 2015. (Lumm, Kailasapathy)

12:02 a.m. Lumm is describing what this resolution does. She allows that she’s brought this up previously. But she laments the lack of progress. So she wants the council to give some direction that it supports this approach.

12:04 a.m. Kailasapathy is explaining the problem with defined benefit plans is that demographics have changed – life expectancy has increased.

12:08 a.m. Warpehoski says he’s voting against the resolution, but doesn’t want that vote to be understood as being against defined contribution plans. He says that the right venue for this kind of thing is negotiated at the table as labor contracts are developed. Lumm responds by saying it’s not a collective bargaining strategy. Nothing has happened in two years, she says. She says the council should provide direction as a council.

12:08 a.m. Teall says she doesn’t support this and so she’s not going to vote to it.

12:10 a.m. Warpehoski references a staff memo that supports his contention that this would impede the city’s general labor strategy. Staff had expressed their concerns about this approach. He’s chaffing under the implication from Lumm that he had not read the resolution, noting that he did read it.

12:13 a.m. Petersen and Powers are discussing how the council best should supply direction on this topic. They’re discussing closed sessions versus open sessions. Anglin says this doesn’t even seem like a budget amendment. It’s more like a general direction.

12:13 a.m. Outcome: The council has rejected this amendment on 3-8 vote. Voting for it were Lumm, Eaton, and Kailasapathy.

12:13 a.m. Policy direction: This proposal would not alter the budget but would ask the city administrator to “study alternatives to increase street funding and present to Council by Sept. 30, 2014 a report outlining options, their financial impact, and the pros and cons of each.” (Lumm, Eaton, Kailasapathy, Anglin)

12:16 a.m. Lumm is reviewing the content of the resolution.

12:16 a.m. Outcome: The council has approved this amendment on a unanimous vote. This prompts an “Oh, my god!” from Lumm.

12:16 a.m. Budget amendment: Animal control. The proposal would eliminate funding for an inventory of commercial signs in favor of animal control for the Human Society of Huron Valley and for deer herd management costs. (Petersen, Kailasapathy, Eaton, Anglin)

12:18 a.m. Petersen recites the content of the resolution. Lumm says she’ll support this amendment as a short-term solution. She’s prepared another amendment involving dog licenses that is meant to address the long-term issue.

12:18 a.m. Kunselman is getting clarification about the total amount that would wind up allocated for animal control – about $100,000.

12:22 a.m. Warpehoski says that when the city was dealing with the digital billboard ordinance, having an inventory of signs was noted as something that was important. So he’s torn about this amendment. Powers is explaining that the sign inventory is important and that’s why it’s in the budget. He can’t say exactly how urgent the work might be. Can it be deferred? Yes, says Powers. Warpehoski says he’ll support the amendment this year, but does want to see the inventory done.

Kunselman draws out the fact that the $75,000 would have been spent on a consultant. He’s not interested in supporting consultants.

12:24 a.m. Petersen, Lumm and Kunselman are doing some wordsmithing about what HSHV will be doing.

12:30 a.m. Hieftje wants to move along to a vote.

12:30 a.m. Outcome: The council has approved this amendment on a unanimous vote.

12:31 a.m. Budget amendment: Warming center. This proposal would allocate $100,000 from the affordable housing trust fund to provide assistance for a warming center. (Lumm, Briere)

12:33 a.m. Briere says that she can find past uses of the affordable housing fund that are consistent with this one. This does not cover 100% of the anticipated cost, but she wants to bring it forward now instead of waiting until October, because it’s possible to anticipate that there will be a winter.

12:34 a.m. Kunselman asks if the source of the funds is all general fund money. Briere explains that there were general fund transfers as well as proceeds from the sale of the former Y lot.

12:37 a.m. Kunselman says he’s not comfortable using money from an affordable housing fund. He’d support a general fund expenditure for that purpose. But he doesn’t think it’s wise to raid the fund for purposes other than providing affordable housing. Eaton says he’s also voting against it. When the council voted to put the net proceeds of the Y lot into the affordable housing fund, he’d been concerned that there weren’t clear criteria for use of the affordable housing trust fund. He calls for development of guidelines for use of funds from the affordable housing trust fund. He’s voting against this.

12:38 a.m. Hieftje says he’s torn on this. He’s concerned about the demand for warming shelter services for people who are not from Washtenaw County. The city needs to work with its partners to figure out how to continue to provide services to people from Washtenaw County. It’s premature to make a decision tonight, he says, because it should be based on a strategy worked out with partners.

12:39 a.m. Lumm is supporting this, and notes that Briere has worked with Mary Jo Callan and Ellen Schulmeister, executive director of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County. There’s a need for additional capacity for a warming center.

12:41 a.m. Warpehoski says he’ll support the amendment, but with the same reservations that others have expressed. His understanding, however, is that allocations from the affordable housing trust fund need a recommendation from the housing & human services advisory board (HHSAB). Briere says that it’s legitimate for the council to take this action without the HHSAB recommendation. She believes that HHSAB would support it.

12:43 a.m. Taylor says that much of our services go to folks “who are not of us,” which leads to a slippery slope of not being able to serve the “local homeless.”

12:48 a.m. Taylor says that this is an issue that’s more complicated than what can be solved tonight.

12:48 a.m. Outcome: The council has rejected this amendment on a 5-6 vote. Voting for it were Kailasapathy, Briere, Petersen, Lumm, and Warpehoski.

12:48 a.m. Recess. We’re now in recess.

12:55 a.m. Teall is sitting in the mayor’s seat. Not clear if she’s going to take over for Hieftje when we resume. She’s fortifying herself with peanut M&Ms.

12:55 a.m. “Come on folks, let’s go!” says Teall.

12:56 a.m. Teall says we’re on schedule to be out by 4:15 a.m.

12:56 a.m. Budget amendment: 415 W. Washington demolition – pedestrian safety. This proposal would use some of the $300,000 in the general fund budget that’s designated for demolition of the city-owned 415 W. Washington property to fund the pedestrian safety and access task force. (Briere, Warpehoski)

12:59 a.m. Briere says that the pedestrian task force would be funded in two ways – from the $75,000 set aside for a sidewalk gap elimination study and from part of the $300,000 set aside for the 415 W. Washington demolition. Powers confirms that Briere’s description of the way that project management staff are paid is accurate – in that they’re paid by project.

1:00 a.m. Eaton expresses puzzlement, saying he thought this pedestrian safety task force funding had been in front of the council and they’d postponed it, and that staff had identified all the required funding.

1:05 a.m. Craig Hupy, public services area administrator, is at the podium fielding questions from Kailasapathy. The $77,320 in the resolution is for the consultant on the pedestrian safety task force. Warpehoski reviews the history of how the consultant was selected. The task force is eager to have a positive impact on the community, he says. Current staff don’t have capacity to provide the task force support, he says. The task force has participated in the selection of the consultant (The Greenway Collaborative), he says.

1:05 a.m. Lumm is now commenting on the amendment. She’s reviewing how the funding works.

1:06 a.m. Mayor John Hieftje has departed the meeting, and Teall has been presiding over the meeting as mayor pro tem since returning from recess.

1:09 a.m. Kunselman says it seems like the council is picking on the 415 W. Washington demolition funds, when it’s been put of for several years. Powers says that there would need additional preparatory work to make an application to the historic district commission for the demolition.

1:11 a.m. “The building needs to come down,” Kunselman says. “This building is not going to be saved,” because it’s going to cost too much. In the meantime, it’s a blight in the neighborhood, across from the new Y building. It needs to be torn down and the city has been dragging its feet, he says. Now the council is stalling that effort, so he won’t support it.

1:12 a.m. Kailasapathy asks if the amendment can be split into two parts so that the $75,000 portion could be dragged forward from last year’s budget.

1:15 a.m. Briere says that the pedestrian task force was established through a unanimous vote of the council and now there’s an obligation to fund it. She’s continuing to argue by saying it’s important not to just give it lip service.

1:16 a.m. Teall agrees with Briere, saying the council has to support task forces that it establishes.

1:19 a.m. Kailasapathy cautions that she did not vote to sign a blank check when she voted for the establishment of the task force.

1:19 a.m. Outcome: The council has rejected this amendment. [We are tentatively recording this as a 5-5 vote. Hieftje has left the meeting.]

1:20 a.m. Budget amendment: Compost/leaf program – extend. This proposal would extend the curbside compostables pickup from seasonal to year-round so that food waste could be kept out of the garbage stream year-round, at an increased annual cost of $300,000. (Briere)

1:21 a.m. Briere is arguing for her proposal.

1:25 a.m. Petersen and Lumm question whether a reduction in tipping fees would actually be realized. Lumm says that if the city is going to spend $300,000 a year from the solid waste fund, it should be to pick up loose leaves.

1:25 a.m. Outcome: The council has rejected this amendment on a 3-7 vote. It got support from Taylor, Teall and Briere.

1:25 a.m. Budget amendment: Art administration, traffic calming efforts. The proposal is to reduce the amount allocated in the recommended budget for transitional costs associated with the public art program from $80,000 to $40,000. The $40,000 in savings would be used for traffic calming projects in neighborhoods, including but not limited to speed bumps. (Eaton, Kailasapathy, Anglin)

1:28 a.m. Kailasapathy says she’d like to dedicate all $80,000 to traffic calming, but she acknowledges that some councilmembers wanted to fund a transition for art. She’s hearing from her constituents that they want to see traffic calming but not transitional art administration funding. The art administrator can be hired for $40,000 and put efforts into private fund raising, she says.

1:29 a.m. Briere says that last year when she put forward additional money for traffic calming, she had been able to identify exactly what projects would be funded. This proposal is more conceptual, she says. She’d be more comfortable with it if it were more precise.

1:32 a.m. Briere questions whether this amendment is about adding money to traffic calming or “because it looks good.”

1:32 a.m. Lumm is supporting this.

1:35 a.m. Outcome: The council has rejected this amendment on a 4-6 vote. It got support from Kailasapathy, Lumm, Eaton, and Anglin.

1:35 a.m. Budget amendment: Streets – Alt Transportation. The proposal would, for this year, bump the Act 51 allocation for alternative transportation from 2.5% to 5% – which translates to $180,000. The amendment would ask the city administrator to provide information that would help the council determine the appropriate percentage to allocate to alternative transportation. (Briere)

1:36 a.m. Briere had to be encouraged to bring this forward by Eaton, after she said she thought the council was by now going to split 5-5 on everything else (because Hieftje is no longer here). She summarizes why she wants to increase alternative transportation funding.

1:39 a.m. Lumm says she won’t support this because it draws down the general fund. Other councilmembers correct her.

1:39 a.m. Outcome: The council has approved this amendment over the dissent of Kunselman.

1:40 a.m. Budget amendment: 415 W. Washington demolition. This proposal would simply eliminate general fund support for demolition of the city-owned buildings at 415 W. Washington. (Kailasapathy, Lumm, Eaton, Anglin)

1:42 a.m. Kailasapathy says that she had proposed this in response to CFO Tom Crawford’s cautionary remarks from the May 12 work session about the level of the general fund reserves. She says that the money for demolition could be found in the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage, if the property is added to the PROS plan.

1:45 a.m. Briere talks about the amount of process that would need to be engaged in before deciding that it would become a park. She didn’t think it was realistic to demolish the building before the spring of next year. Lumm says this “hits pause” on the demolition of 415 W. Washington to see if alternatives to the general fund can be found to pay for it.

1:48 a.m. Lumm is noting that the open space preservation millage might be a source of funds. Kunselman says he doesn’t support using parks money for a general fund type building. The building needs to come down, he says. It might not come down until next spring, but the money needs to be appropriated at this meeting. The building is an eyesore and is not in any way historic, he says. He won’t support the amendment. He’ll encourage the staff to move ahead in the coming months on getting the building torn down.

1:50 a.m. Anglin is talking about the costs that would be involved in preserving the building. Artists had talked about possibly using it as an art center. It had been studied, he says, and he doesn’t know where the idea came from to demolish the building. The council had not yet heard from the historic district commission, he says.

1:54 a.m. Anglin says there’s an opportunity in this building to make the art community feel welcome. Teall also questions where the idea came from to demolish the building. Briere says that the council had directed the study of the feasibility of preserving the building and the final report had come back. The result of that report was a conclusion that it would take about $3 million to stabilize the building and another $3 million to renovate it. That’s where the notion of demolishing the building came from.

1:54 a.m. Outcome: The council has approved this amendment over the dissent of Kunselman, Taylor and Warpehoski.

1:55 a.m. Budget amendment: Dog licenses. This proposal would encourage educational and enforcement efforts to increase the 7% compliance rate for dog licenses, which currently generates $15,000 in revenue. The resolution states that Ann Arbor is home to 30,000 dogs and that a 50% license compliance rate would result in $105,000 in revenue. But the resolution targets a 30% compliance rate for the shorter term, which would bring in a total of about $63,000. The resolution alters the revenue budget to reflect that amount. The resolution indicates that at least a portion of the additional $48,000 would go toward payment for animal services provided to the city by the Humane Society of Huron Valley.

1:57 a.m. Lumm characterizes this as an effort to identify a recurring source of revenue for animal control. “We have a lot of dogs in Ann Arbor,” she says. It’s thought that Ann Arbor is home to about 30,000 dogs, she says. A 50% compliance rate would generate about $120,000 annually, she says. Currently the compliance rate is only about 7%, she says.

2:01 a.m. Teall asks about increased enforcement and how that would be done. Powers indicated that it would initially be a matter of raising awareness of the requirement. Only about 2,000 dogs are licensed in Ann Arbor. One of the benefits of having a license for your dog is being able to use the city’s dog parks.

2:02 a.m. Briere has no problem with the idea of focusing on enforcement, but is uncomfortable with making it a budget amendment, because it might assume revenues that might not materialize.

2:03 a.m. Briere wonders if it might be possible not to include such a “confident” allocation.

2:05 a.m. Powers says he’ll likely be bringing an agreement between the county and the city that would be the conduit by which HSHV would be paid. Briere says the 30% compliance rate seems ambitious. Petersen asks about a dog census to help compliance. Powers indicates there’s a statutory requirement for a dog census.

2:06 a.m. Warpehoski wants to vote.

2:07 a.m. Lumm reports that she’s talked to the director of the HSHV, and HSHV sees this as a baby step. She says having 23% greater compliance does not set the bar too high. It’s good for pets and pet owners, she says.

2:09 a.m. Taylor says he’d observed that the council was talking about police officers enforcing dog licenses, when previously some councilmembers had objected to the idea of police officers enforcing an outdoor smoking ordinance. Taylor doesn’t object to either kind of enforcement.

2:11 a.m. Kunselman asks police chief Seto if an animal control officer is needed. Kunselman says there’ve been problems in his neighborhood. Seto notes that every police officer is authorized as an animal control officer. That service is probably not provided as well as when there was a dedicated animal control officer, he says. He notes that the city now works with the county on animal control.

2:12 a.m. Outcome: The council has unanimously approved this amendment.

2:12 a.m. Budget amendment: Parks fairness. This is a standard amendment every year to ensure that the parks budget is increased to match any increase in general fund expenditures in other areas.

2:14 a.m. The parks budget needs to be increased by $23,577 as a result of the budget amendments that were previously approved.

2:15 a.m. Teall says she has reservations about it as a practical matter, but wants to go ahead and vote.

2:15 a.m. Outcome: The council has approved this amendment over the sole dissent from Teall.

2:16 a.m. The council is now on the main question of the FY 2015 budget.

2:17 a.m. Lumm says that she didn’t support last year’s budget because it didn’t make progress toward public safety as an area of priority. But this year’s budget does that with the addition of three police officers, she says. So she’s supporting the budget.

2:17 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to adopt the FY 2015 budget as amended.

2:18 a.m. Clerk’s report of communications, petitions and referrals. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the clerk’s report.

2:18 a.m. Public comment. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

2:24 a.m. Seth Best is addressing the council. He thanks Anglin for mentioning Camp Take Notice. He invites people to drop by 3501 Stone School Road to visit. He was disappointed with the outcome on the warming center resolution. He was also troubled about the distinction between county residents and non-county residents with respect to the provision of services. He reminds the council of the inscription from the Statue of Liberty.

2:24 a.m. Kai Petainen says he’s not upset about the SPARK amendments, but he’s kind of annoyed by SPARK. They’d shown up to the meeting without answers to the council’s questions, he says. His complaint is about how SPARK treated the council and the public. They weren’t prepared for tonight’s meeting, he says, and thereby demonstrated arrogance and ignorance. He said he doubted that if SPARK didn’t get the $75,000 it would cause companies to leave town.

2:24 a.m. Closed session. Outcome: The council has voted to go into closed session to consider pending litigation.

2:32 a.m. They’re back in open session.

2:32 a.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

A sign on the door to the Ann Arbor city council chambers gives instructions for post-meeting clean-up.

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Screenshot of Legistar – the city of Ann Arbor’s online agenda management system. Image links to the May 19, 2014 meeting agenda.

A preview of some possible budget amendments will be reported separately.

The council’s May 19, 2014 meeting agenda includes more than just the adoption of the budget.

Related to the setting of the annual budget are items like setting fees associated with the public services area (for example, site plan review) and the community services area (for example, farmers market stall fees), as well as rate increases for water, sewer and stormwater utilities.

Also related to the budget – and not just for this next year – is an agenda item that will revise the city’s policies for contributions to the city’s pension system and retiree health care. In broad strokes, those revisions are meant to accelerate contributions during a strong economy and maintain contributions at least at the level of the actuary-recommended amount during weaker economies.

Another budget-related item on the May 19 agenda is one related to the social infrastructure of the community – allocation of general fund money to nonprofits that provide human services. The city approaches this allocation through a process that is coordinated with Washtenaw County, the United Way, the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation and other partners. The total amount allocated for operation of programs is about $4.3 million. The city of Ann Arbor’s general fund contribution is about $1.2 million, which is the same amount that has been contributed for the last several years.

Related to human services support is an agenda item that would accept a $113,154 planning grant from the Michigan Supreme Court to establish a specialized mental health court.

Along with social infrastructure, the council will also be asked to approve an allocation that includes utilities infrastructure, to address the needs that resulted from the harsh winter. The resolution the council will consider would allocate money from the fund balance reserves from three sources: $1.7 million from the major street fund, $638,000 from the local street fund, and $666,000 from the water fund. Those amounts include $461,171 from the state of Michigan.

The council will also be asked to approve money for building new physical infrastructure – about $2.6 million for the reconstruction of a segment of Pontiac Trail. The segment stretches north of Skydale Drive to just south of the bridge over M-14/US-23. The street reconstruction project also includes water mains, sanitary sewer, and construction of new sidewalk along the east side of Pontiac Trail, and installation of bike lanes.

Special assessments to pay for three other sidewalk projects also appear on the council’s agenda in various stages of the special assessment process. Those future projects are located on Barton Drive, Scio Church Road, and Newport Road.

The council will be asked to approve the city’s application for federal funding to support the acquisition of development rights in Superior Township for two pieces of property on either side of Vreeland Road. The properties are near other parcels already protected as part of the city’s greenbelt initiative.

The city council will also vote on the confirmation of two appointments: Katherine Hollins to the city’s environmental commission; and Bob White, as a reappointment to his fourth term on the city’s historic district commission.

This article includes a more detailed preview of many of these agenda items. More details on other agenda items are available on the city’s online Legistar system. The meeting proceedings can be followed Monday evening live on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network starting at 7 p.m.

Fees and Rates

On the council’s agenda are rate increases for utilities (water, sewer and stormwater) as well as fee increases for the public services and community services area.

Fees and Rates: Water, Sewer, Stormwater

Water rates are proposed to increase across all tiers of consumption. For the first 7 “units” of water, the charge is proposed to increase from $1.35 to $1.40. For the next 21 units, the charge is proposed to increase from $2.85 to $2.96 per unit. And for the 17 units after that, the increase is proposed to be from $4.88 to $5.08. A unit is 100 cubic feet, which is 748 gallons.

Sewer rates would increase from $3.65 to $3.85 per unit. And stormwater fees would increase for all tiers of impervious service. For the middle tier – for more than 2,187 square feet but less than or equal to 4,175 square feet – on a quarterly basis, the increase would be from $24.85 to $26.32.

According to the staff memo accompanying this item, the recommended rate changes in water, sewer, and stormwater would increase revenues to the water, sewer, and stormwater funds by $765,119, $1,171,931 and $410,235 respectively. The reason given for the rate increases is to cover maintenance and debt payments, and to maintain funding for capital improvement requirements. The city calculates the impact to be an additional $6.25 per quarter or $24.98 per year for an average consumer, which is a net increase of 4.2%.

Water consumption for a typical single family is assumed at 19 units per quarter.

History of city of Ann Arbor water rates. The city converted to a tiered system 10 years ago in 2004, based on usage. The 2015 amount is proposed.

The utility rates are part of a city ordinance. So the council will be considering initial approval at its May 19 meeting, with final approval to come at its first meeting in June – on June 2.

Fees and Rates: Community and Public Services Area

Fee increases in the community services area and the public services area will be considered by the council at its May 19 meeting.

For community services, increases are being proposed for stall fees at the Ann Arbor public market (farmers market). Currently, the basic annual fee for rental of a stall is $300. It’s proposed to be increased to $450 – a 50% increase.

If approved by the council, the fee increase would be projected to generate $26,000 in additional revenue. However, this additional revenue has not been assumed in the proposed FY 2015 budget.

According to the staff memo accompanying the agenda item, “market fees were last increased in 2009 and have not kept pace with the overall increase of annual operating costs during this same time period.” A comparative analysis of Ann Arbor’s fees also showed that Ann Arbor’s fees are well below those of comparable markets.

Comparative chart of stall rental rates, including three in other states. Ann Arbor’s current rate is the leftmost blue bar. Ann Arbor’s proposed market stall rental rate is shown in green. The red horizontal line is the average. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the city of Ann Arbor.)

Comparative chart of stall rental rates, excluding those in other states. Ann Arbor’s current rate is the leftmost blue bar. Ann Arbor’s proposed market stall rental rate is shown in green. The red horizontal line is the average. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the city of Ann Arbor.)

In the public services area, fees for a variety of services are being considered – for such items as site plan review, soil and sedimentation control. According to the staff memo accompanying the agenda item, the increases consider labor, material and supplies, equipment, and overhead cost and are aimed at full cost recovery. The increases are generally in the range of 1% to 5%.

Pension and VEBA Funding Policy

The council will be considering policies for making contributions to the pension and retiree health care plan that is supposed to ensure that the plans are eventually fully funded. The policy would set the funding at the higher of two different figures: (1) the Actuarial Required Contribution (ARC) rate; or (2) the existing level of contributions adjusted for the change in general fund revenues. That would have an impact of establishing a minimum increase in funding of 2% per year.

The operative language in the policy is:

If the General Fund revenues are projected to increase less than 2%, the city’s contribution shall increase 2%; thereby establishing a minimum increase of 2% per year.

Social Infrastructure

The council’s agenda includes two items that can be characterized as funding social infrastructure: the annual general fund allocations to nonprofits that provide human services; and the acceptance of a planning grant for the 15th District Court to establish a mental health court.

Social Infrastructure: Coordinated Funding

The council will be asked at its May 19 meeting to approve funding allocations to nonprofits as part of a coordinated funding approach for human services, in partnership with several other local funders.

The city is one of the original five partners in the coordinated funding approach. Other partners include Washtenaw County, United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Urban County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. It began as a pilot program in 2010.

This year, 105 applications were submitted by 50 local organizations totaling $8,732,389 in requested funding, according to a staff memo. A review committee recommended that 57 programs receive a total of $4,321,494 in available funding. Of that amount, the city is providing $1,244,629.

FY 15       Funding Source                                        
$1,244,629  City of Ann Arbor General Fund                    
$1,760,708  United Way of Washtenaw County                    
$1,015,000  Washtenaw County's General Fund                   
$  274,907  Washtenaw Urban County CDBG funds                 
$   26,250  Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation senior funds 
========== 
$4,321,494  TOTAL

-

The coordinated funding process has three parts: planning/coordination, program operations, and capacity-building. The approach targets six priority areas, and identifies lead agencies for each area: (1) housing and homelessness – Washtenaw Housing Alliance; (2) aging – Blueprint for Aging; (3) school-aged youth – Washtenaw Alliance for Children and Youth; (4) children birth to six – Success by Six; (5) health – Washtenaw Health Plan; and (6) hunger relief – Food Gatherers.

In 2012, TCC Group – a consulting firm based in Philadelphia – was hired to evaluate the process. As a result of that review, several changes were recommended and later authorized by the city council at its Nov. 7, 2013 and by the Washtenaw County board on Nov. 6, 2013. One of those changes is that funding would not necessarily be allocated to the six priority areas based on the proportion of funding allocated in the past. Instead, allocations among the six priority areas would be based on identified community-level outcomes, the strategies that align with them, and how each are prioritized. An additional change would broaden the pre-screening process so that smaller nonprofits could be accommodated.

Funding for this cycle will start on July 1, 2014. In addition, the RNR Foundation – a family foundation that funded TCC Group’s evaluation of the coordinated funding approach – will now be an additional funder in this process.

The RNR Foundation funding will go toward the planning/coordination and capacity building components of the effort, so their funding is not listed among the items in the  program operating component.

Here’s a breakdown of how the program operating component of the city of Ann Arbor’s share will be allocated:

   
   FY 2015  Agency
   $20,000  Barrier Busters 
   $30,000  Peace Neighborhood Center
   $35,069  Ozone House Inc.
   $54,168  Domestic Violence Project Inc. dba SafeHouse Center
   $56,396  UM Regents (Community Dental Center, Housing Bureau for Seniors)
   $85,500  Avalon Housing 
   $90,786  Child Care Network
  $102,156  Food Gatherers
  $115,558  The Salvation Army of Washtenaw County
  $122,095  Washtenaw Community Health Organization
  $160,761  Shelter Association of Washtenaw County
  $164,660  Community Action Network
  $207,480  Legal Services of South Central Michigan
$1,244,629  Grand Total

-

That compares with the current fiscal year as follows:

 
  FY 2014   Agency
   $4,561   HIV/AIDS Resource Center     
  $12,772   Washtenaw Association for Community Advocacy     
  $14,282   Planned Parenthood Mid and South Michigan     
  $17,139   Jewish Family Services of Washtenaw County
  $19,835   Barrier Busters     
  $23,719   UM Regents - Ann Arbor Meals on Wheels     
  $27,369   The Women's Center of Southeastern Michigan     
  $63,419   Home of New Vision
  $91,645   Interfaith Hospitality Network of Washtenaw County     
  $94,490   Catholic Social Services of Washtenaw     
  $95,171   Food Gatherers     
 $104,944   Community Action Network
 $109,851   Perry Nursery School of Ann Arbor     
 $142,851   Avalon Housing Inc.     
 $177,052   Services of South Central Michigan
 $245,529   Shelter Association of Washtenaw County
$1,244,629  Grand Total

-

The coordinated funding approach sometimes results in the same programs being funded – but by different funders. This year, the city of Ann Arbor is funding a program for Peace Neighborhood Center; last year Washtenaw County provided funding ($19,995) for Peace Neighborhood Center. And last year, the city of Ann Arbor funded a University of Michigan meals-on-wheels program; this year, United Way is funding that program.

Recipients of funds in one year are not guaranteed funding the following year. An example of that is the Women’s Center of Southeastern Michigan, which received $27,369 from the city of Ann Arbor last year for a mental health program, but is not receiving funds as part of the coordinated funding program this year.

Social Infrastructure: Mental Health Court

The council is being asked to approve the receipt of a planning grant of $113,154 from the Michigan Supreme Court State Court Administrative Office (SCAO) to fund the planning for a mental health court program.

According to the staff memo accompanying the item, mental health courts are problem-solving courts “that focus on therapeutic treatment for offenders with mental illnesses whose crimes are a result of their mental illness.”

The memo continues:

Eligible defendants are diverted into judicially supervised, community-based treatment to address the underlying problems. The program uses a team approach to address the participant’s needs for mental health and/or substance abuse treatment while also linking the participant with ancillary services such as education, housing, job skills or other individualized assistance. The goal is to assist participants in bettering their lives while also benefiting the community by reducing jail time, recidivism rates, and court docket congestion.

The 15th District Court already operates several specialized courts – a sobriety court, a homeless court, veterans court and domestic violence court. The mental health court would be operated in addition to those other specialized courts.

For background on the 15th District Court’s specialized “problem-solving” courts from last year’s Chronicle reporting, see: “Round 1 FY 2014: 15th District Court.”

Physical Infrastructure

Physical infrastructure appears on the council’s May 19 agenda in several forms: an allocation of money to deal with damage to systems from the harsh winter; a Pontiac Trail street reconstruction project; and several sidewalk projects.

Physical Infrastructure: Winter Damage

The council will be asked to approve an allocation that includes utilities infrastructure, to address the needs that resulted from the severe winter weather.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, compared to last year there was a 36% increase in water main breaks and a 950% increase of broken water services. Compared to the previous two years winters, the 2013-14 winter had 272% more snow and a 450% increase in required plowing. That meant additional use of materials like ice-control salt, sand, cold-patch, pipe, repair clamps and fittings – in addition to higher-than-anticipated work hours and overtime, and increased equipment costs.

The resolution the council will consider would allocate money from the fund balance reserves from three sources: $1.7 million from the major street fund, $638,000 from the local street fund, and $666,000 from the water fund. Those amounts include $461,171 from the state of Michigan.

The work will include frozen service line repairs, pavement marking, and road surface repair. The work is not anticipated to be completed until well after June 30, 2014 – the end of the current fiscal year.

At a May 12 city council work session, public services area administrator Craig Hupy presented the council with some data on the age of the city’s piping system, saying that for the water pipes, those that were constructed in 1950s, 1960s and 1970s are more problematic than those built before and after that period. Still, he indicated that the city’s breakage rate was considered low for a system that is as old as Ann Arbor’s.

Ann Arbor Sanitary Sewer System by Year of Construction. (Data from the city of Ann Arbor, chart by The Chronicle)

Ann Arbor Water System by Year of Construction. (Data from the city of Ann Arbor, chart by The Chronicle)

City of Ann Arbor Water Main Breaks by Year. (Data from city of Ann Arbor Comprehensive Annual Financial Report)

Physical Infrastructure: Pontiac Trail

The council will consider two resolutions in connection with a street reconstruction project on Pontiac Trail.

The first is a $2,605,190 contract with Evergreen Civil LLC for construction of the project. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the project includes reconstruction of Pontiac Trail beginning north of Skydale Drive to south of the bridge over M-14/US-23. The project also includes extending water mains and sewer pipes, as well as construction of new sidewalk along the east side of Pontiac Trail, and installation of bike lanes. The memo also indicates the project will include stormwater infiltration trenches, edge drains, and the addition of a small section of curb and gutter. The project is expected to begin in June of 2014 and be completed by fall of 2014.

The other contract to be considered by the council in connection with the Pontiac Trail project is $46,879 for Professional Services Industries Inc. for materials testing.

Responding to a query from The Chronicle, city project manager Nick Hutchinson indicated that the council would be presented at its June 16 meeting with the next in a series of resolutions on special assessment to help fund the sidewalk portion of the Pontiac Trail project. The council had voted at its Jan. 21, 2014 meeting to direct the city administrator to prepare plans, specifications and a cost estimate for the Pontiac Trail sidewalk project. The special assessment process requires the setting of an assessment roll and the holding of a public hearing before a special assessment can be imposed.

Physical Infrastructure: Sidewalks

Three other sidewalk projects that are further along in the special assessment process than Pontiac Trail are also on the council’s May 19 agenda: Barton Road, Scio Church and Newport Road.

Physical Infrastructure: Sidewalks – Newport Road

A public hearing on the Newport Road sidewalk special assessment, which started on May 5, will continue at the council’s May 19 meeting. For the sidewalk segment on Newport Road, the council had approved at its April 21, 2014 meeting a resolution directing the city assessor to prepare a special assessment roll of properties to be assessed. The council took action to set the public hearing on the Newport Road special assessment for May 5.

The total amount to be special assessed for the Newport Road project is $49,746. But residents of the Newport Creek Site Condominium – who would not ordinarily be assessed, as their property isn’t adjacent to the sidewalk – have volunteered to contribute $10,228 to the project to help offset their neighbors’ assessments. Details of that arrangement are being finalized.

However, several residents spoke at the May 5 public hearing, opposing the special assessment.

Newport Road sidewalk stretch.

Physical Infrastructure: Sidewalks – Scio Church

Again on the city council’s May 19 agenda are resolutions to set the assessment roll and set a public hearing (to be held June 16) for the special assessment of a Scio Church Road sidewalk. Action on the Scio Church sidewalk project special assessment had been postponed at the council’s April 21, 2014 meeting until May 19.

For this sidewalk project, the total cost is expected to be $365,100. Of that, about $164,000 will be paid from a federal surface transportation grant. The remaining $201,100 will be paid out of the city’s general fund and by the special assessment of just $1,626. It was the size of the total amount of special assessment that led to the postponement. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) argued at the April 21 meeting that the amount to be assessed was not worth the staff time to follow all the bureaucratic procedures involved in implementing the special assessment. He also called for 80% of any sidewalk project to be funded through non-special assessed funds.

Purple indicates stretches of Scio Church Road where no sidewalk exists.

Physical Infrastructure Sidewalks – Barton Road

On the city council’s May 19 agenda are resolutions to set the assessment roll and a public hearing (to be held on June 16) for the special assessment of a Barton Drive sidewalk. The sidewalk to be special assessed was part of an approval given at the council’s April 21 meeting: The council approved $177,100 of city funds for the construction of the Scio Church Road sidewalk and for an additional sidewalk on Barton Drive.

The cost of the Barton Drive sidewalk has been calculated to be $80,606. Of that, about $36,000 will be paid from federal surface transportation funds. Of the remaining $44,606, the city’s general fund would pay $42,626, leaving just $1,980 to be paid through the special assessment.

Location of proposed Barton Drive sidewalk.

By way of additional background, approval of the design contract for the Barton Drive and Scio Church Road stretches of new sidewalk had been approved by the city council at its March 3, 2014 meeting.

And at its July 15, 2013 meeting, the council had approved $15,000 for preliminary design of a sidewalk along Barton Drive. Even earlier – at its Nov. 19, 2012 meeting – the council approved $15,000 for preliminary study of a sidewalk to be constructed along Scio Church, west of Seventh Street. On Nov. 7, 2013, the council approved another $35,000 for Scio Church sidewalk design work. The design contract for the Barton Drive and Scio Church stretches of new sidewalk drew on the previously authorized funding.

The preliminary planning budget of $15,000 for the Newport Road sidewalk gap was approved over a year ago by the council at its Jan. 23, 2013 meeting.

Greenbelt

At its May 19 meeting, the city council will be asked to consider approval of application to the federal Agricultural Land Easement (ALE) program to protect 260 acres of farmland located in Superior Township. The ALE program now includes what was previously known as the Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP).

The farm parcels consist of property on either side of Vreeland Road, which is currently in agriculture production. Additional properties under the same ownership, adjacent to the farmland parcels, are also being considered for inclusion in the city’s greenbelt program, and the Vreeland Road properties are near other properties already protected as part of the greenbelt – the Meyer Preserve, the Jack R. Smiley Preserve and the Schultz conservation easement. Cherry Hill Nature Preserve is located just north of the property. [.jpg of greenbelt properties as of May 2014]

Here’s a dynamic map of properties outside the city already protected under the city’s greenbelt program. A 30-year open space and parkland preservation millage, which voters approved in 2003, funds both the greenbelt program as well as land acquisition for city parks. The border indicates the area where greenbelt funds can be spent to protect properties.

Appointments

The city council will also vote on the confirmation of two appointments: Katherine Hollins to the city’s environmental commission; and Bob White, as a reappointment for his fourth term on the city’s historic district commission.

Hollins is a staffer with the Great Lakes Commission. She’s being appointed because David Stead’s lengthy service on the commission – dating from 2000, when the commission was established – had generated opposition among some councilmembers. Nominations to the environmental commission are made by the council as a whole, not by the mayor. In offering the substitute nomination, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated in an email to other councilmembers that “David Stead has decided that his life is busy enough he cannot do justice to serving on the commission.”

White was appointed to the historic district commission for his first three-year term in 2005.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

From left: Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), and city of Ann Arbor transportation program manager Eli Cooper. (Photos by the writer.)

First, the council accepted the award of a roughly $2.8 million federal grant to help fund a site-alternatives analysis for possible construction of a new train station. That analysis is meant to result in the confirmation of a locally-preferred alternative to be reviewed by the Federal Rail Administration.

The grant requires a local match of roughly $700,000, which the city expects to make with funds it has already expended – in connection with the Fuller Road Station project, before the University of Michigan withdrew its participation earlier this year. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) voted against accepting the grant.

One of many concerns expressed by Lumm was that the study would not be conducted starting with a “clean sheet,” which city transportation program manager Eli Cooper acknowledged was the case. But Cooper observed that starting with a clean sheet would mean wiping away previous work that had already been done.

Some of that work has been completed by SmithGroup JJR. At its June 4 meeting, the council also approved a $196,192 amendment to an existing contract with the firm – for further site analysis, funded by the new federal grant. Partly on the basis of a perceived conflict of interest by SmithGroup JJR in conducting the current work – given that it had done the previous work on site analysis – Lumm and Anglin also voted against that contract amendment as a two-person minority.

Lumm and Anglin were joined by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) in voting against a revised agreement among four parties that establishes a framework for possibly creating a larger transportation authority. The four parties to the agreement are the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. In conjunction with reconsidering the four-party agreement, the council also approved articles of incorporation for the new Act 196 transit authority that would eventually need to be filed by Washtenaw County – on request from the AATA – in order to establish a new governance structure.

The council had previously approved the four-party agreement on March 5, 2012. The need for the Ann Arbor city council to reconsider the documents arose after the Ypsilanti city council amended those documents before approving them on May 15. On a unanimous vote, the Ann Arbor city council accepted only those amendments made by the Ypsilanti city council that affected the city of Ypsilanti. The Ann Arbor council majority gained one vote from its 7-4 approval of the agreement in March – Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) switched her earlier position and voted for it. The following day, on June 5, the Ypsilanti city council reconsidered and adopted the version of the four-party agreement that had been approved by the Ann Arbor council.

The result of the action by the two councils is an agreement that the cities will treat their transit taxes differently with respect to a municipal service charge. The city of Ann Arbor will impose the charge and keep roughly $90,000 that would otherwise go to the new transit authority, while Ypsilanti will forward an estimated $3,000 to the new transit authority, rather than applying that charge.

The four-party agreement will next be formally considered by the Washtenaw County board of commissioners – first at a June 14, 2012 working session. It now appears almost certain that the final ratification of all parties to the agreement will not occur with sufficient lead time for a countywide transit millage to be placed on the November 2012 ballot.

In other transportation-related action – affecting pedestrians – the council gave final approval to a revision to the city’s sidewalk repair ordinance. The ordinance revision relieves property owners of responsibility for sidewalk maintenance, during the five-year period of the millage that voters approved for that purpose in November 2011. The revision also provides a mechanism for the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to pay for sidewalk repairs within its geographic district.

In other business, the council gave final approval to new water, sewer and stormwater rates. It also revived a previous requirement that it had rescinded last year – that a construction utility board (CUB) agreement be signed with the Washtenaw County Skilled Building Trades Council as a condition of award for city construction contracts. The council had rescinded the requirement in deference to a law enacted by the Michigan legislature, but a federal court has since enjoined against enforcement of that law.

In some of its other action items, the council formally made a change in the composition of the Elizabeth Dean tree fund, and authorized two street closings for the Sonic Lunch summer music series in Liberty Plaza. The council also heard public commentary on a range of topics, including a proposed warming center for the homeless.

Federal Rail Administration Grant

The council considered action on two items that relate to a possible new train station for the city of Ann Arbor. The first was acceptance of a grant made through the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT). The grant would fund initial planning and environmental documentation related to possible construction of what’s now called the Ann Arbor Rail Passenger Station. The contract for the work is being funded with a federal grant worth $2,806,400 with a required 20% local match of $701,600. The grant was awarded by the Federal Rail Administration in connection with the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) program.

City administrator Steve Powers (left) chats with University of Michigan community relations director Jim Kosteva before the city council’s June 4 meeting. Kosteva was not attending the meeting in connection with the rail project, but to receive an award on behalf of the university from the city’s historic district commission for Burton Tower.

A conceptual pre-cursor to the project was called the Fuller Road Station, which had included the University of Michigan’s participation. UM was interested in a 1,000-space parking structure to be built in conjunction with a new rail station on an identified site nestled between Fuller Road and East Medical Center Drive, adjacent to the UM medical campus. However, UM withdrew from that project earlier this year, on Feb. 10. The university decided instead to revisit its earlier plans to build additional parking on Wall Street.

For purposes of the federal local match requirement, Ann Arbor now intends to use funds already expended toward the former Fuller Road Station project – for conceptual planning, environmental documentation efforts and some preliminary engineering. Over the past three years, the city has paid for that work from its major street fund, alternative transportation fund, and the previously existing economic development fund.

The city also hopes that UM will contribute toward the costs of the work already done. However, the city’s FY 2013 budget, approved by the council at its May 21 meeting, allocates up to $307,781 from the city’s general fund to cover the local match, if an agreement with UM can’t be reached. Responding to recent Chronicle queries, city administrator Steve Powers and UM community relations director Jim Kosteva have characterized the conversations between the city and the university on this topic as “ongoing dialogue.”

The grant was the subject of public commentary from several people.

FRA Grant – Public Commentary

Sumi Kailasapathy told the council she regretted that some of the city’s cherished parkland appears to be taking one more step toward conversion to a railway station and parking garage [a reference to the Fuller Road site]. She described how in many Asian countries, temple lands are considered sacred. In Ann Arbor, for many residents, parks hold a similar sacred status, she said. [Kailasapathy is a Democratic candidate for the Ward 1 city council seat – to which incumbent Sandi Smith has announced she's not seeking re-election.]

Kailasapathy noted that while parkland is one of the permissible uses for land zoned PL (public land), it’s the only use that has a limitation on incompatible uses, she said.

By way of background, at its July 6, 2010 meeting, the city council approved a change to the use regulations for PL (public land) to replace airports as an allowable use with the more general “transportation facilities.” The change explicitly included “municipal airports, rail stations, bus stations, bicycle centers, auto and bicycle parking facilities” as examples of such facilities.

Kailasapathy reminded the council that the city’s zoning ordinance states: “No structure shall be erected or maintained upon dedicated parkland which is not customarily incidental to the principal use of the land.”

The Fuller Road site is designated as parkland in the parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan, she said, adding that a train station would not be customarily incidental to the principal use of that land. She asked the council to respect the zoning ordinance and preserve the site as it was intended – for enjoyment as parkland. Adopting other uses for parkland without a vote of the people, she continued, is in direct opposition to the charter amendment passed by a large margin of voters in 2008, which prohibits the sale of parkland without a popular referendum.

From an economic and financial point of view, Kailasapathy said, there needs to be a detailed business plan for a train station, which lays out the funding mechanism for the station and the trains. Until there are answers in writing to those questions, she said that spending on the train station should stop.

Jack Eaton told the council he was there to speak in opposition to the Fuller Road train station. [Eaton is contesting the Ward 4 Democratic primary, challenging incumbent Margie Teall.] He noted that Ann Arbor residents have repeatedly and consistently supported parkland. They approved dedicated millages for park acquisition and maintenance. They approved a charter amendment that restricts the sale of parkland. The city’s zoning ordinance restricts the use of parkland. He reiterated the point about allowable uses of parkland that Kailasapathy had made, regarding structures on parkland that are not customarily associated with a parcel’s principal use. The city also has a long history of supporting public transportation, he said. But a train station is not consistent with parkland use, and he asked the council to consider the precedent that would be set by re-purposing the parkland at the Fuller site for use as a train station.

Nancy Shiffler addressed the council as chair of the Huron Valley Group of the Sierra Club. She noted that she’d sent a letter with concerns about the two resolutions related to what’s now being called the Ann Arbor Rail Passenger Station. By appearing before the council, she wanted to reinforce those concerns about the process outlined for the environmental assessment, which is a component of the Federal Rail Administration grant, and is required under National Environmental Policy Act guidelines. Although NEPA regulations require that contractors be chosen to avoid any conflict of interest, the selection of SmithGroup JJR introduces just such a conflict, she contended. SmithGroup JJR has been contracted for the train station project from the outset – with the assumption that it will be located at the Fuller Road site.

The preliminary engineering component, for which SmithGroup JJR is contracted for, she said, can’t start until the environmental assessment has been approved by the FRA. The scope of work in the contract for SmithGroup JJR’s work makes clear that the intent is to end up with a recommendation for the Fuller Road site, she said. One of the deliverables, she continued, includes a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for the Fuller Road site. Under those circumstances, she said, it’s hard for her to believe that SmithGroup JJR could produce an objective report. A part of the environmental assessment is consideration of alternative sites for the project – that’s reflected by including, in the scope of services document, the current Amtrak site as a possible location.

But elsewhere it’s indicated that they’re planning to take the structures with the footprint for the Fuller Road site and “plop it onto the current Amtrak site,” she said, rather than designing a plan to fit that particular site. That’s not the way to support an objective analysis, she said, unless the council’s intent is to support a forgone conclusion. The council should require that competitive bidding be used for the contract, she said. Her group has shared these concerns with MDOT and FRA in the past and would continue to do so.

Rita Mitchell spoke on behalf of the group Protect A2 Parks. She described herself as an advocate for the integrity of Ann Arbor’s public parks and honest processes that follow the will of the people on significant decisions for the city, like those before the council that night. She felt the council did not have adequate information to make a decision. She noted that the name of the project has changed from Ann Arbor Multimodal Center, to Fuller Intermodal Transit Station, to Fuller Road Station, to its current name: Ann Arbor Rail Passenger Station. In the course of different council actions taken over the last few years, those described as stakeholders, city councilmembers and city staff have focused on the same piece of city parkland – for a project that has not been completely defined or approved by the council. She pointed to the city project that relocated sewer lines to accommodate a planned station there – for whatever rail project it is.

Mitchell allowed that the sewer relocation had been included in the city’s capital improvements plan, but it had not been a high priority at the time it was approved. The invitation to bid was entitled “Contract Documents for Fuller Road Station Phase One, Northside Interceptor Sanitary Sewer Relocation and Site Utility Construction Project.” SmithGroup JJR has been involved with the design since the start and is biased, Mitchell continued. The public participation so far, she said, consisted of a planning commission work session, a park advisory commission meeting and a public open house – all held between Sept. 10 and Sept. 17 of 2009. She questioned whether those meetings were adequately noticed. She contended that there’s been only one true “public hearing” – held by the planning commission in 2010. Other presentations were held as presentations, with city staff maintaining tight control on questions from citizens, she said. There was no sense of asking citizens what they wanted.

James D’Amour told the council that he is very much in support of public transit, including trains that run to Chicago. He contended that city transportation program manager Eli Cooper has stressed that acceptance of the grant means the city is obligated to carry out a full planning process. So a yes vote, D’Amour argued, strongly commits the city to build a new train station. But the city has no finalized plans for construction or financing, he said. The FRA grant funding doesn’t add to the city’s budget. D’Amour contended that voting yes commits the city to matching 20% of this grant and whatever grants are received from the federal government in the future. Because the city has no guarantees of future funding, the city would be left “holding the bag,” he contended. Voting no costs the city nothing financially, he said. He called it reckless for the council to make this decision without further thought about the consequences. He asked the council to postpone a vote.

FRA Grant: Council Deliberations

During the time allotted for council communications toward the start of the meeting, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) responded to the commentary on the rail station by saying he was impressed with speakers who had taken the time to learn about the issues. They had good suggestions about how to proceed as a council. The speakers love the city as councilmembers do, he said. While some of the things they said might not be technically correct, they are the people that the council represents, he said. The council needs to be conscious of that and be respectful of their position and their interest in improving Ann Arbor, Anglin concluded.

FRA Grant: Council Deliberations – Commitment?

When the council arrived at the FRA grant agenda item, it was Jane Lumm (Ward 2) who led off the deliberations. She started by focusing on the issue that had been raised during public commentary – about the kind of commitment that the city’s acceptance of the grant reflected.

Councilmember Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Lumm asked transportation program manager Eli Cooper: By accepting the grant, is the city committing to proceed with the project? A second question she had: Was the city “in any way, shape or form” committing to spending any additional local money? Cooper explained that by accepting the grant, the city would be committing to the work identified in the list of deliverables under the grant. Those include a detailed work program, an environmental document, conceptual plan and preliminary engineering after the FRA’s authorization to enter into that phase of the work. So, Cooper said, there’s a break in the contract where the FRA has the right to direct the city to proceed to undertake the work under the grant agreement.

The final deliverables are a set of preliminary plans – which could complete the city’s work, if the city decided to stop at that point. There are no additional federal funds awarded to the project at this time, he said, and the city would have to apply under a separate agreement for any subsequent work. It’s not the case, Cooper said, that if you commit to spending the first dollar that you’re fully committed to build whatever project comes out of the process. He felt it would be the community’s desire and it would be in the community’s best interest to pursue subsequent grants. But by accepting the planning grant, there’s no requirement that the city is committing to deliver a final project.

Lumm picked up on Cooper’s use of the phrase “at this time” and wanted to know if that meant there’d be an eventual commitment. Cooper responded with, “The simple answer is no.” If there were no federal funds available after the planning grant-funded activity is completing, the federal agency would itself require the city to go back and revisit the environmental clearance document. The city could not be forced to proceed during the short term or at any time, he said, under the terms of accepting the $2.8 million grant.

Lumm confirmed with Cooper that currently there were no federal funds identified for the project at this point, beyond the planning grant. Cooper said the lack of identified federal funding is a risk that had been outlined in the city’s application. Lumm asked again if by accepting the grant, the city was committing to spending any additional local funds. Cooper told Lumm that there’s no additional investment required to “complete the work that’s before us.” That’s because the city has identified local in-kind funds for the match as funds that have already been expended. Lumm said she meant beyond the planning grant activity – would there be any future local funds required?

Cooper told Lumm he wouldn’t say that no future local funds would be required to deliver a train station. If the economy were in such condition that there was another federal stimulus project that provided 100% funding – like recent awards to Battle Creek and Dearborn – then Ann Arbor “might be so blessed,” he said. But Cooper indicated that if a federal grant award for the actual construction of a rail station is made under terms of the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant – like the current planning grant – then a 20% local match would be required. That local (non-federal) match could be made by a combination of state, city, university or the local transit authority, Cooper said.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) wanted to clarify Cooper’s answer further: By accepting this grant, she ventured, the city was not committing to going beyond the scope of the contract. Cooper’s reply: “Correct.” Briere described it as a grant, and if the city were to decide at the conclusion of the grant phase that it’s done, then the city would be done. She said it’s her understanding that unless the city receives additional federal assistance beyond this grant, the city did not expect to build anything. Cooper told Briere that there’d been no city staff recommendation to date that the city invest 100% of funds for any rail improvement.

Briere asked if it’s the city’s intent to provide any money for the maintenance and operation of a rail system. After clarifying the question, Cooper said, “The answer is no.”

FRA Grant: Council Deliberations – Spending to Date

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked if Cooper could provide a detailed breakdown of spending to date on the Fuller Road project, noting that the last information he had was from a year ago, which had been produced by the city under a Freedom of Information Act request.

The source of the funds outlined in a staff memo provided to the council before the meeting provided the following breakdown.

$  54,621 FY2010 Major Streets Fund (0021)
$  54,621 FY2010 Alternative Transportation Fund (0061)
$ 104,742 FY2010 Economic Development Fund (0045)
$ 327,733 University of Michigan Contribution
$  46,664 FY2010 Sewage Disposal System Fund (0043)
$  64,564 FY2010 Street Repair Millage Fund (0062)

-

Anglin appeared more interested in getting an itemized breakdown of actual expenditures to date. Cooper indicated that the spreadsheet he had in front of him showed expenditures related to NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) and EA (environmental assessment) for the project amounting to $737,784.90.

Anglin said he was confused by the project, because for a time the city had talked about an intermodal facility, then talked about commuter rail and was now talking about passenger rail. The city has a train station and has had one for many years. If the city were to accept this grant, Anglin wanted to know if the requirement was to study the feasibility of potential sites. Cooper told Anglin that such a study was absolutely one of the prerequisites of any investment of federal funding – to look at the “no-build” alternative, as well as the alternative that would simply improve the existing facility.

Anglin indicated that some material the council had received described how by 2015 all Amtrak facilities will need to be ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliant. He wondered why the city was in the railroad business, and he ventured that the city was not qualified to build a train station or a railroad or anything like that. He did not like the idea of any of the city’s money going in that direction.

Anglin said he’d spoken against the train station from the point of view of the use of parkland, and the lack of a financial plan. It comes at a time when the city is having a difficult time taking care of the essentials, he said. That bothered him. A train station would be a nice thing to have, if the city were in flush times. But it seemed to him that accepting the grant still commits the city to a 20% match – which the city has already spent. He said he could not ever remember a vote by the council saying that it wanted the Fuller Road site to become an intermodal station or a train station. It’s all very confusing, he said.

FRA Grant: Council Deliberations – National Rail Policy

Anglin asked Cooper to clarify what’s going on. Cooper began by saying that for transportation infrastructure funding, there are funding crises at all levels – federal, state and local. In conversation with MDOT, which has recently created an office of rail passenger service, they’ve indicated that stations are local issues, Cooper said. From the standpoint of rail operations, he continued, the emphasis and focus of the state and the feds is to keep the trains moving. Access to amenities locally (like stations) are seen as a local contribution. What Ann Arbor began in 2006 and continued through 2009, he said, was a local process that included the adoption of the city’s transportation plan update. That’s a part of the city’s master plan, he pointed out. So the city’s master plan indicates the provision of a better train station in Ann Arbor as something that merits consideration.

Because that’s a matter of adopted city policy, staff have pursued grant resources that have been made available, Cooper continued. And Ann Arbor was fortunate enough to be selected by the FRA for the grant that was before the council for consideration, he said. It’s a difficult decision, Cooper added, to deal with the day-to-day issues of today, compared to making an investment in an asset that will serve the community for “decades if not centuries.” The challenge for city staff was to respond to the council’s direction, so the grant was pursued and an application was made. Cooper noted that he’d stood before the council on many occasions in connection with the project and looked forward to the council’s future direction – through environmental analysis, preliminary engineering to the design, and construction at any location that the planning process determines.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) asked Cooper why he felt that Ann Arbor’s application to the FRA was successful when so many other communities had applied but were not successful. Cooper felt that Amtrak itself recognizes that the Ann Arbor station is the busiest in the state of Michigan. It’s also on a Detroit-Chicago line that is not adequate to meet current demands.

Amtrak ridership at the Ann Arbor station. Over the last 10 years, ridership through the Ann Arbor station has shown a consistent increasing trend. For 2012 (heavy black line) the ridership levels continued at their peak levels to date through March. In April there was a significant decrease compared to last year’s record numbers. (Chart by The Chronicle using MDOT data. Links to larger image.)

Cooper felt it was important to remind councilmembers that the federal government has awarded $0.5 billion to the Michigan Dept. of Transportation to acquire and upgrade the rail line between Detroit and Chicago. This past April, FRA and MDOT purchase bilevel passengers cars to increase the capacity of each train. The number of people who will be traveling along the line will increase, he said. Cooper said that Amtrak expects that ridership will double over the next 25 years. We’re currently stressed, he said. It’s well recognized now that for certain times of the year, the Amtrak station capacity and all the parking around it are 100% consumed.

Cooper described how tracks are being upgraded to allow for faster trains. The number of trains could be increased – from six per day to 10 per day, and the capacity of each train is increased with higher-capacity cars and adding cars. The platforms that are outlined in Amtrak designs for appropriate stations are 1,000 feet long, Cooper said. The current Amtrak station platform is not nearly that long, he noted. The intent, he said, is to have 1,000 foot trains with passenger cars that people can get on and off for that roughly quarter-mile stretch. That’s the enormity of the type of infrastructure that a high-speed passenger rail system needs, he said. That’s the opportunity that Ann Arbor has in front of it – to position itself to continue to be a leading community that provides “first-rate, world-class transportation in and out of our city,” Cooper said.

Hohnke ventured that the investment being made by the federal government in Michigan’s high-speed rail would lead to the ability of Ann Arborites to make connections from Chicago, for example, to the rest of the Midwest.

He also asked Cooper to give some background on why the funds are available on the federal level. Cooper said he felt the issue is that there’s pressure on the national aviation system – to meet the demand for people to travel 300-600 miles throughout the country. As business and commerce increases throughout the Midwest, Cooper said, the capacity of the airspace and the road networks is limited. While it might appear that there’s adequate capacity near Kalamazoo, for example, as you approach the metropolitan corridors, there are congestion issues, he said. The rail system is seen as an underutilized asset in North America, he said, and that’s why it’s federal policy to make those investments. Cities like Cleveland, St. Louis, Chicago, and Minneapolis are all about 300-500 miles from each other, and high-speed rail is an efficient and effective way for travelers to cover that distance.

Hohnke confirmed that expenditures to date locally will cover the local match requirement. Cooper said it’s his understanding that based on the timing of the notice of funding eligibility, the resources that have been expended to date will satisfy the 20% local match requirement. Hohnke ventured that if that turns out to be accurate, then the city is looking at the opportunity to have almost $3 million to continue planning work for a passenger rail station. Cooper clarified that the roughly $700,000 local match will leverage $2.8 million in federal funds for a total investment of $3.5 million.

FRA Grant: Council Deliberations – Support, Opposition, Delay?

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said she was excited about the project. As someone who goes past the train station, she encounters people who are coming and going. Right now, she said, a whole bunch of people pile out with 30-pound suitcases and they have to go up a long flight of stairs, across the Broadway bridge, and down another flight of stairs to find their car. It’s clear that the current train station is not adequate. The study will indicate what would need to be done to improve the existing station if it were to remain in the current location, Smith said. Cooper confirmed that’s within the scope of services that SmithGroup JJR will provide – whether the existing station can be modified to meet existing demand.

Smith asked about the traffic issue – would a traffic analysis be part of this? Yes, said Cooper. Smith felt that the pushback from the community on this was either unwarranted or at least premature – because we don’t know yet what the answer is going to be. Regardless, some kind of “blueprint” for the issue would emerge for a better train station, Smith said.

Cooper sought to make clear that while no final decision has been made after seven years of effort, there is a leading preferred local alternative. The council and the federal government will have to make a final decision about whether there is an acceptable locally-preferred alternative [the Fuller Road site]. There’s clearly been a substantial amount of effort, and now more work will be put into documenting that and clarifying that, meeting with residents and providing all that information to the FRA, Cooper said. And ultimately the FRA will evaluate whether the existing site or the locally-preferred alternative is better.

Smith reiterated that she is excited about the project going forward and that the city is on the verge of something great. She said she couldn’t imagine that there’s a Democrat sitting around the table who would not be excited to see this project coming out of Washington right now.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) followed up on the federal high-speed rail program. She said she understood the federal investment to be one-time federal stimulus money. Cooper indicated that the total investment had come over the course of more than one year from a combination of different funding mechanisms. Lumm asked if any of the money could be used for the construction of the train station. Cooper said that if there were money left from the planning grant, the money could be used to build something. But understanding the complexity of the final design and construction drawings, Cooper felt it was highly unlikely that the city could build anything with that amount of money.

Lumm asked Cooper about future federal transportation funding. Cooper said that was an ongoing debate – it had been going on for several years. He indicated he didn’t want to offer an opinion about how that might turn out.

Lumm wanted to know if the city had surveyed people who ride the trains. She also asked about having more robust public engagement on the issue. Cooper noted that the term “locally-preferred alternative” is one associated with the federal regulatory process. That process also includes various formal terms for the environmental documents – an environmental assessment is different from an environmental review or from an environmental impact statement. The draft preliminary locally-preferred alternative is something that needs to be given to the lead agency – in this case, the FRA – for their review and comment. There’s a draft environmental assessment that clearly states there’s a locally-preferred alternative, he said. That’s purely a city staff and consultant product, and was never reviewed by the FRA.

However, there was an effort put into that assessment to come up with that locally-preferred alternative, Cooper explained. It was subjected to about 18 meetings. He allowed that there are a variety of opinions about how effective the public engagement had been. However, he said there’s been a website set up with frequently asked questions that derived from the process. There were changes made between the initial plans and the locally-preferred alternative that came in response to input from the public, he said. The council had held working sessions on the topic and staff had done additional work based on direction from the council, he said.

Cooper said that the staff have been thorough and deliberative, and while they haven’t reached a final conclusion, they have “a leading track” of a locally-preferred alternative. The city is required to do so in order to advance the project for the review of a federal agency and that agency’s ultimate approval, he said. The first steps of this grant agreement, if the council approved it that night, would be to begin refining the existing documents so that the city can respond to concerns the FRA has outlined, and that include additional public meetings if they’re required. So it’s not on a “fast track” but rather on a “deliberative track,” Cooper said. Ultimately, the city will get a determination from the FRA about whether the intrusion into parkland for the train station is justified.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) literally don’t see eye to eye on the Ann Arbor train station issue.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said that, like Smith, he was excited about the project. Transportation is one of the essentials. He stressed that the preliminary step the council will be taking won’t bear fruit for several years. He’d asked the mayor of Dearborn how long they’d been working on the planning for the new rail station that recently broke ground, and Derezinski had been told around 12 years. Derezinski called the acceptance of the grant for Ann Arbor an essential step for the future of the city. You have to take some of these steps, he said, and you have to have some faith in the future. People of good intentions are on both sides of the issue, he said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked Cooper if there was a deadline for accepting the grant. Cooper said there was not a deadline per se. But the preliminary environmental analysis, Cooper said, “grows older each day.” Kunselman wanted to know how long the city would have before that analysis would be considered “stale.” Cooper told him that would ultimately be up to the FRA, but that after a couple of years, he expected that would be too long. Kunselman ventured that meant the city had considerable time. Cooper countered that the preliminary analysis had been done a year and a half ago. Part of the proposal is to freshen up some of the analysis. Kunselman asked about a roundabout design for Maiden Lane and Fuller Road – would that be part of the traffic analysis? Cooper said he didn’t think so. Kunselman felt like another work session would be very helpful.

Kunselman expressed concern about the amount of money that was being paid to SmithGroup JJR. He asked if the following sentence was correct: “The not-to-exceed cost for the work associated with this amendment is estimated to be $196,192.00, and will be funded by a federal High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program Grant awarded to the State of Michigan and being made available through a contract between the City and the Michigan Department of Transportation.” He wanted to know if that money would be city dollars or federal grant dollars. Cooper explained that it would be federal grant dollars, under city control.

Kunselman’s line of questioning was abandoned as relevant to the subsequent agenda item – the resolution on the SmithGroup JJR contract. Kunselman asked if it would be possible to have another work session on the topic. Cooper said that if the city were to continue working on the project, then acceptance of the grant would allow that work to happen, with the aid of the federal grant.

Anglin said that for the original intermodal project, the council had been told there were 11 sites that had been considered and that the site selected would be the Fuller Road site. So if the city has already done that selection process, he wondered why the city was going back and looking at that question. He then discussed the train schedules and the difficulty that they present to travelers. The problem with the train is not with the train station, he said, but rather with the way the trains are scheduled. Building a new station won’t improve train service at all, he contended. He said he was afraid the city was about to embark on something that will be “a big boondoggle for our little town.” He said he was against the acceptance of the grant. He contended that the $1.3 million for the relocation of sewer pipes should be counted as an expense connected to the train station. Anglin contended that the city was committing to a $60 million project down the road, and he didn’t think the city had the money for that.

Kunselman said he was torn because he loved trains. He was looking forward to riding the train to Providence, Rhode Island to visit his daughters – who are graduating from high school this year and will attend Brown University. However, he did not like spending general fund dollars. Cooper clarified that the contract amendment with SmithGroup JJR would be federal grant dollars. Kunselman pointed out that the some of the matching funds that had already been expended originated as general fund dollars.

From left: Ward 3 councilmembers Christopher Taylor and Stephen Kunselman.

Kunselman asked if the MichCon site on Broadway would be included in the further study? Cooper indicated that the analysis would include the prevailing conditions at the time of the study. Right now, Cooper said, MichCon has not made the land immediately adjacent to the Amtrak station available. He said that as part of a design workshop, MichCon might be looked at to see if it could remedy any of the issues at that location. But that parcel was not one of the 15 sites that the city had looked at starting four years ago, he said. Subsequently, the staff reviewed privately-owned properties, and two rose to consideration – one was a private manufacturing plant, and the other was the MichCon property.

Kunselman noted that MichCon had indicated openness to selling the property to the city. Mayor John Hieftje said that his own discussions with MichCon related to the river side of the parcel, not the part close to the railroad tracks.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said two things were important to her. First, no new dollars would go to the project. By accepting this grant, the city would be able to spend federal dollars from the grant. Without accepting the grant, Briere said, the city can’t get to the point of looking at what the project might look like, or how it might be different from the project design as it looked 18 months ago, or what the impact on traffic will be, or whether the site at Fuller is the best possible site. The city is not making a commitment to build anything, she said, but everyone knows that once you’ve gone a certain distance, that you want to build whatever it is you struggled to get approved. But without spending the federal grant, she added, the city won’t get to the point of a decision about what to do if there are no funds to build the train station in a couple of years.

Briere addressed the idea that it’s unprecedented for a city to construct a train station. She assured people that it’s not unprecedented. The current station was constructed with state and local dollars, and the selection of the site grew out of a citizen and staff decision by committee. The location was selected to be next to the old historic train station, even though it had already outgrown the parking capacity, she said, because people sitting around a table like the current council romantically believed that the train station should be where it had always been. She allowed that she, too, is romantic and loved the Gandy Dancer [a restaurant in the former train station]. She’d be delighted if the city had a train station right there. But the FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency] flood maps show that the entire piece of land is in the flood plain. What implications does that flood map have for potential improvements to the site? she asked. Briere figured she would not get an answer to that question unless the city accepted the grant. She said she was eager to accept the grant, but wanted to separate the grant from the location. That’s a conversation she wants as well.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) ventured that this had been the longest time the council had ever spent accepting a grant. Given that there would be no additional local dollars spent as part of accepting the grant, and that it did not reflect a commitment to build a train station, and that it preserved options going forward, it was not clear to him why the council would not accept the federal funds. Hohnke pointed to the lesson of Troy, Mich., where the local Tea Party had pressured the Troy city council to reject the offer of similar federal funds. That news was covered nationally, and Hohnke characterized the consensus view as an exercise in cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face. Acceptance of the grant was an opportunity to align Ann Arbor with the federal and state investment in high-speed rail.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) just before raising a point of order about the length of Jane Lumm’s (Ward 2) speaking turns.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said her issue is what commitment the city is making by accepting the grant. She indicated that she was not satisfied with the answers she’d heard concerning the required commitment. She felt that what was needed was a “clean sheet,” starting from scratch. She would not sign a blank check, and there are too many unknowns, she said. She would not support acceptance of the grant. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) raised a point of order about the number and length of Lumm’s speaking turns. Mayor John Hieftje asked Lumm to wrap up, which she did.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he was certainly going to support acceptance of the grant. The council has a chance to do something good for Ann Arbor by moving forward with an exciting project. Meeting transportation needs is core to maintaining Ann Arbor as a vibrant, thriving place to live. So it’s “mission-critical,” he said. Acceptance of the grant doesn’t reflect a final decision – that decision would be made later, he said. The grant is bound “by the four corners of the document,” he said. People who speak to the council in general opposition to the project never fail, Taylor said, to express their affection for rail. They say: “I’m not against rail, I’m against this project.” He said he took them at their word.

However, the corollary to that, Taylor said, is that being in favor of the project doesn’t make you “anti-park.” The Fuller Road site, he said, is not “some bucolic wonderland.” It’s not a soccer field or a tennis court or a brook, but rather a parking lot, he said, and it’s been that way since 1993. No child has played there since the Clinton administration, he said. If another location is better, then let’s look at that, said Taylor, but he’d be delighted to vote yes. [.gif animation of aerial photography of the site beginning in 1940, with the last slide from 1998]

Margie Teall (Ward 4) also indicated she is excited about this project and it needs a bigger discussion. That bigger discussion can’t happen until the city gets the information from the studies that are being done, she said.

Hieftje asked city administrator Steve Powers if acceptance of the grant would affect the city’s ability to pay for core services. No, Powers answered.

Hieftje asked about ridership on Amtrak. Cooper said it continues to move in an upward direction as the speeds along the Detroit-Chicago corridor are increasing to 110 mph. Hieftje characterized the service that Ann Arbor would eventually have as the kind of train service that other parts of the country have. Ann Arbor’s Amtrak station is the busiest in the state, he said. Referring to the city’s sustainability framework that will be coming to the council for approval, Hieftje said he didn’t know how the city would achieve those sustainability goals, without investments in rail. [.pdf of proposed sustainability goals]

Hieftje disputed the idea that the council had never voted on the project. He pointed out that the memorandum of understanding with the University of Michigan on the precursor to the current project had gotten a unanimous vote from the council. [That vote had been taken at the city council's Nov. 5, 2009 meeting.]

Outcome: The council voted to accept the Federal Rail Administration grant ($2.8 million, based on a $700,000 local match to be provided by Ann Arbor with already-expended funds) – with dissent from Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

SmithGroup JJR: Rail Station Planning Work

A separate item on the council’s agenda related to money that’s provided through the Federal Rail Administration grant. The council considered a $196,192 amendment to an existing contract with SmithGroup JJR for continuation of study and planning work that was already done in connection with the Fuller Road Station project. The work under the contract will be funded from the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) grant, and will involve continued “… re-examination of the current program definition to affirm it is consistent with the stakeholder goals for the Ann Arbor Rail Passenger Station Project, and revisions as required to the conceptual plan,” as well as completion of required National Environmental Policy Act documentation.

SmithGroup JJR: Rail Station Planning Work – Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) expressed skepticism that the work would be approached objectively. She asked the city’s transportation program manager, Eli Cooper, how he could ensure that there’ll be an objective “clean sheet.” Cooper indicated that it was not the intent to have such a “clean sheet” and he could not assure her there would be one. He said in order to assure a “clean sheet,” the city would have to wipe away the previous work.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) engaged in a conversation about the potential depth of flood waters at the current Amtrak site. Given the length of the platforms involved [1,000 feet], Kunselman ventured that some location between the Fuller Road site and the current Amtrak location might be appropriate.

Lumm wanted to make sure that the current Amtrak location got “a fair shot.”

Asked if SmithGroup JJR had a conflict of interest, assistant city attorney Mary Fales indicated that she did not believe so.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he was pleased that sites other than the Fuller Road site would be engaged as part of the study, and that consideration of the Fuller Road site was “not stacking the deck” but rather taking into account an already established factual basis.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the contract amendment with SmithGroup JJR, with dissent from Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Four-Party Agreement

The council reconsidered an agreement among four parties on a framework for possible transition of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority to a broader geographic service area, governance, and funding base.

The four parties to the agreement are the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County and the AATA. In conjunction with reconsidering the four-party agreement, the council also considered articles of incorporation for the new Act 196 transit authority. Those articles would eventually need to be filed by Washtenaw County – on request from the AATA – in order to establish a new governance structure. According to the four-party agreement, even if a new governance structure is established under Act 196 of 1986, the transition of assets from AATA to the new authority, tentatively named The Washtenaw Ride, would not take place until a voter-approved funding mechanism is established.

The council had previously approved the four-party agreement on March 5, 2012, with implied approval of the attached appendix that included the articles of incorporation. The need for the Ann Arbor city council to reconsider the documents arose after the Ypsilanti city council amended those documents before approving them on May 15.

The Ypsilanti amendment to the four-party agreement related to a 1% municipal service charge that the agreement originally allowed the two cities to impose on their transportation millages, before forwarding the millage money to the new transit authority. The Ypsilanti council struck the municipal service charge from the agreement for both cities. It amounted to around $3,000 that the city of Ypsilanti would forgo, but $90,000 for Ann Arbor.

For the most recent general Chronicle coverage of transit issues, see: “AATA Board OKs Key Countywide Documents.”

Four-Party Agreement: Public Commentary

Thomas Partridge complimented the work of those who’d been presented with awards from the Ann Arbor historic district commission – at the start of the meeting – quipping that he hoped he did not appear to be an antique himself. He told the council that he had an appreciation of history. He called on the public to support countywide transportation, saying it’s essential for moving forward economically, and it’s a civil rights issue as well. He called for support of the four-party agreement.

Four-Party Agreement: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) proposed an amendment to the four-party agreement that essentially reversed the amendments that had been undertaken by the Ypsilanti city council to the extent that they applied to the city of Ann Arbor. The impact of the amendment preserved the ability of the city of Ann Arbor to apply a 1% municipal service charge to its millage before passing along the millage proceeds to the new transit authority. The Ypsilanti council’s amendment had eliminated that for both cities. The financial impact on the two cities is disparate – because of the difference in millage rate (roughly 2 mills for Ann Arbor and 1 mill for Ypsilanti) and the relative value and amount of property in Ann Arbor compared to Ypsilanti. For Ypsilanti, the 1% translates to roughly $3,000, compared to $90,000 for Ann Arbor.

In arguing for the amendment, Lumm noted that the Ann Arbor council had essentially already voted on the issue, on Feb. 6, 2012, during its initial consideration of the four-party agreement, when it considered an amendment related to the municipal service charge.

Lumm cited an email from the city’s chief financial officer attesting to the fact that the city’ financial staff spent a considerable amount of time on transportation issues. The municipal service charge is fair, Lumm said, and that’s why it’s there. She also felt that in the future, city staff would be spending even more time – as transportation evolves regionally.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked Michael Ford – CEO of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority – to describe what services the AATA receives from the city that are covered by the service charge. She also asked what effect would it have on the AATA if the city did not assess the charge. Ford told Briere that the money could go into transportation service for Ann Arbor. One type of charge started in 1975, Ford said, and it was for tax assessment, billing, collections, receiving and banking. Since that time, an administrative fee has been added – for coordination and review of transportation plans and over city planning, and city clerk services related to AATA matters. Such a fee might have been appropriate when the AATA was in its infancy stages, Ford said, but his own staff now deals with transportation issues involving coordination with other jurisdictions. Those services are something that the AATA is actually doing on its own, Ford said.

Briere asked how the AATA would use the $90,000 from the municipal service charge if it were available to the AATA to spend. Ford reiterated that it could be reallocated into increased services – adding frequency to routes #4, #5, or #3, for example.

Mayor John Hieftje said he was inclined to support the amendment.

Outcome on the municipal service charge amendment: The council unanimously approved the amendment to restore the municipal service charge.

Briere clarified that by approving the four-party agreement, the council is also approving the articles of incorporation, so she encouraged her colleagues to think about whether they had any remaining questions on that document.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) clarified with assistant city attorney Mary Fales that after the council approved the amended document, it would need to go back to the Ypsilanti city council and the AATA board as well for reconsideration and reapproval. [Ypsilanti did that the following evening, on June 5, 2012.]

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked about the agreement with Ypsilanti, noting that Ypsilanti is a vital part of the community. He noted however, that Ypsilanti is strapped financially. Outside the framework of a possible new transit authority, Anglin said he’d be willing to work with Ypsilanti to provide services. His fear was that the agreement would be putting an undue burden on Ypsilanti, which would lead to some hard decisions in the future. He wanted to keep Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti in “strong unison.” Ford responded by saying that he would not speak for Ypsilanti, but that he felt Ypsilanti was looking to provide transit service at a higher level. Route #4 [between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti] is up 20% since increasing the frequency of service. He felt that Ypsilanti thinks “this is the way to go” in partnership with Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked Ford about the purchase of service agreement (POSA) between Ypsilanti and the AATA. Kunselman noted that it expires in June 2012. Ford confirmed that is the case and said that the AATA is working with Ypsilanti on that issue. Kunselman asked Ford to elaborate on what happens when the POSA expires. If it’s extended, where will the funding come from? Ford said that Ypsilanti and the AATA are talking about that right now and would be meeting on that issue to work out some strategies.

Kunselman pressed the issue of where the money would come from – not from the city of Ypsilanti, because they don’t have the money, he said. The only source of additional funding for Ypsilanti would have to come from the Ann Arbor millage or from state funding or federal funding, Kunselman ventured. He felt like the Ann Arbor millage was the most likely revenue source and asked Ford to explain if that were an option. Ford said there are different options on the table right now and he would like to meet with Ypsilanti to discuss them.

Kunselman asked about expanded services that are to be offered – based on a possible additional 0.5 mill countywide millage. Ford indicated that as part of the new transit authority, expanded service is planned for both Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor – he pointed to higher frequency service, later evening service, and more weekend service. He passed around a brochure outlining some of the features of the improved services.

From left: Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) peruse an AATA brochure as Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) speaks.

Kunselman noted that Ypsilanti can’t pay for the level of service it enjoys now. With an additional 0.5 mill worth of revenue, that might get Ypsilanti to the point where it can cover its existing service. But if services are to be expanded in Ypsilanti, Kunselman asked, where will the money come from to cover that? Ford said that Ypsilanti’s millage and additional funding for the countywide authority would together fund Ypsilanti’s transportation, and that Ypsilanti has to make that clear to its citizens.

Kunselman came back to his question about the city of Ann Arbor millage: Is it an option that the city of Ann Arbor millage will be used to help support Ypsilanti during tough times? Ford said he’d rather talk to Ypsilanti first and find out what the options are.

Kunselman asked about ridership and revenues. Ford noted that according to a recently published USA Today report, AATA was fourth in the nation, measured by ridership increase. Kunselman also asked about discount fares that are expected to end. Ford confirmed that the new service to the Detroit Metro Airport (AirRide) has a promotional fare of $10, which will go up to $12 at the end of July. That service, Ford reported, had started off with 400 passengers a week and is now carrying over 1,000 passengers a week. Kunselman asked who is paying for long-term parking in the downtown Ann Arbor parking structures. Ford explained that through partnership with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority (which manages the city’s downtown public parking), AirRide passengers can park for two-weeks for $2 in a downtown parking structure. Kunselman elicited the fact that the AATA is not paying the DDA the difference in the regular cost. Ford characterized that arrangement as the DDA providing the AATA with the opportunity to grow the AirRide service.

Kunselman stated that he would not support the four-party agreement. He said he’d been out to Chelsea recently and he had a problem with running empty buses past that farmland. Kunselman said he was more interested in working with Ann Arbor’s immediate neighbors where there is the most density and where it makes sense to run fixed-route buses – like Ypsilanti.

The council’s subsequent deliberations unfolded along similar lines to previous discussions. Highlights included Briere’s observation that some Ann Arbor city councilmembers’ concerns about only having 7 of 15 seats on a new countywide transportation authority board were countered by worries in other communities that Ann Arbor would dominate with 7 of 15 seats. She noted that the five-year service improvement plan includes increased frequency and more weekend and evening service.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said that the four-party agreement and the articles of incorporation lay the groundwork for intergovernmental cooperation: “You can’t have intergovernmental cooperation without intergovernmental cooperation.”

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) couched his support in terms of the importance of regional approaches to issues.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked if it’s accurate that other jurisdictions can opt out of the countywide authority. Ford confirmed that’s the case, but said the idea is to get everybody involved with an opportunity to participate. The more communities that participate, the better it is for everybody, Ford said.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) said he was hopeful that the council’s unanimous support for the amendment that night might lead to unanimous support for the whole agreement. There’s a great benefit to the city if the council speaks with a loud, clear voice. He allowed that it was a bit of a stretch to expect that those who opposed the agreement the first time around would vote for it on that basis.

Kunselman confirmed for Hohnke that it was a stretch to expect that – by ticking through some of his by-now-familiar objections.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the amended four-party agreement and articles of incorporation, with dissent from Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), who had previously voted against it, supported it this time around.

Sidewalk Repair Ordinance

The council considered final approval to a revision to the city’s sidewalk repair ordinance – in light of the voter-approved sidewalk repair millage, which passed in November of 2011.

The basic idea is that for the period of the authorized millage – through fiscal year 2016 (which ends June 30, 2017) property owners will not be responsible for repairs to sidewalks abutting the property on which they pay taxes. There are various wrinkles and contingencies in the revised ordinance for properties located within the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority tax increment finance (TIF) district.

Ann Arbor voters authorized an additional 0.125 mill to be levied as part of the street repair millage, which was also renewed at that November 2011 election for 2.0 mills, for a total of 2.125 mills.

As part of the resolution passed by the city council to place the sidewalk millage question on the November 2011 ballot, the council directed the city attorney and other staff to provide the ordinance revision for the council’s consideration on or before Dec. 1, 2011. Like the council’s deliberations on May 21, when initial approval was given for the ordinance change, they did not include any comment at the council table about why the revision came to the council nearly half a year after the date specified. Nor did discussion by the council focus on the basic purpose of the ordinance change – to ensure that property owners were not held responsible for sidewalk repairs adjacent to their property.

Instead, the focus of council deliberations was on the wrinkle of the ordinance revision that pertains to the area of the city inside the DDA district.

Sidewalk Repair Ordinance: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge stressed that safe pedestrian transportation is very important for seniors and handicapped people.

Sidewalk Repair Ordinance: Council Deliberations

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) introduced the background of the ordinance revision by describing the purpose of the ordinance change as setting up a way to give the city responsibility for maintaining and repairing sidewalks inside the DDA district, and for the DDA to provide funding for that task. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) pointed out that funding to be provided by the DDA comes from the DDA’s TIF [tax increment finance] capture of the newly enacted city sidewalk millage.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) chats with assistant city attorney Mary Fales before the June 4 meeting.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wanted to know if the DDA would make payments to the city after the sidewalk repairs, or if the city treasurer would withhold the money prior to disbursing the TIF capture to the DDA? Craig Hupy, interim public services area administrator, told Kunselman that he anticipated the DDA would return the tax capture of the 0.125 mill tax to the city. Kunselman asked if there’s a separate agreement between the city and the DDA to that effect – if so, he wanted to see a copy of that agreement. Hupy noted that the ordinance revision lays out the two options – either the DDA does the work, or the DDA returns the money to the city for the DDA area.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the revision to the sidewalk repair ordinance.

Water, Sewer, Stormwater Rates

The council was asked to give final approval to increased rates for drinking water, sanitary sewer and stormwater utilities. According to a staff memo, the impact of the increases on an average single-family customer comes to 3.21% across three different rate increases – assuming the same level of consumption as last year. That 3.21% increase works out to $19.40 per year.

By way of illustration of the rates, the drinking water rate for the vast majority of residential customers is tiered, based on usage. For the first 7 “units” of water, the charge is proposed to increase from $1.27 to $1.31. For the next 21 units, the charge is proposed to increase from $2.64 to $2.74 per unit. And for the 17 units after that, the increase is proposed to be from $4.50 to $4.69. For additional amounts more than 45 units, the charge is proposed to increase from $6.50 to $6.78 per unit.

One hundred cubic feet is 748 gallons. So a rate of $1.31 per unit translates to significantly less than a penny a gallon – $0.00175.

Ann Arbor’s tiered rate system was implemented in 2004. Before that, the rate for all usage levels was the same. In 2003, that was $1.97 per unit. In 2004, the lowest tier was dropped to $0.97. This year’s rate for the lowest tier is still less than what the general rate was in 2003. However, basic service charges for water and sewer service were implemented as part of the tiered system – which for the smallest size 5/8-inch meter are currently $10.57 and $11.25 per quarter, for water and sewer, respectively. The stormwater service charge is $6.77 per quarter. Those service charges did not increase this year.

[Link to Google chart illustrating the history of Ann Arbor water rates] [.jpg of chart showing history of Ann Arbor water rates] [.pdf of water, sewer rates]

Water Rates: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge told the council that they need to come up with a formula that is progressively oriented and that does not impose undue burdens on tenants.

Water Rates: Council Deliberations

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) pressed for some explanation of how the financial incentives are set up for the stormwater discounts. By way of background, residents can get discounts to the stormwater charge – based on a formula that includes the amount of impervious surface area on their property. Residents can get discounts for various measures. By way of example, by installing one or more rain barrels, residents can get a discount of $1.96 per quarter.

Craig Hupy, interim public services area administrator, explained to Smith that the amount of the discount is based on the estimated actual reduction in the cost of services. The city has actually pushed hard to get discounts up to the current level. Smith allowed that it was a fair rationale, but she wished that the incentive would be high enough that people would actually implement those measures.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked what the administrative charge covered for the stormwater fee. Hupy explained that it’s for the overflight, with infrared photography to measure impervious surface – on which the stormwater rates are based.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the new water, sewer and stormwater rates.

Dean Tree Fund Committee Changed

The council considered an item to officially eliminate the city council appointee to the Elizabeth Dean Tree Fund committee. The committee was established in 1975 to oversee the use of investment earnings from a nearly $2 million bequest made to the city by Elizabeth Dean. According to a Nov. 10, 1974 Ann Arbor News article, the bequest was made in the early 1960s to “repair, maintain and replace trees on city property.” The principal amount remains intact.

The formal elimination of the city council committee member leaves the committee with seven voting members and one non-voting member – the city’s urban forestry & natural resources planning coordinator. The city’s description of the committee indicates “No Council Rep. Based on City Council action taken on 1/6/03.” Based on city council action on that date, it appears that no councilmember was appointed when all of the council committee assignments were made. It appears that in subsequent years, the council has not had a representative on the Dean Tree Fund.

A staff memo accompanying the resolution indicates that the reason for the formal change is a desire to have an odd number of voting members and to reduce the quorum requirement for meetings from five members to four.

For fiscal year 2012, the investment income to the fund is budgeted at $85,000.

Currently, only six people are listed as members of the Dean Tree Fund committee, in the city’s Legistar system: Albert E. Gallup, Bonita D. Ross Ion, Jane Immonen, John R. Bassett, John Remsberg, and Warren Attarian.

During the brief council deliberations, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) observed that the council’s action was making official an unofficial practice. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) indicated support for having the city’s urban forestry & natural resources planning coordinator on the committee. He said there were major changes taking place with the urban forest and he hoped there would be information about that in the near future.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the change in the composition to the Elizabeth Dean Tree Fund committee.

CUB Agreements

Last year, the Michigan state legislature passed Act 98 of 2011, which prohibited municipalities from signing construction contracts in which contractors were required make an agreement with a collective bargaining organization.

At the time, the city of Ann Arbor had such a requirement: Contractors signing construction contracts with the city had to execute a Construction Utility Board (CUB) agreement with the Washtenaw County Skilled Building Trades Council, as a condition of the contract. So on Aug. 15, 2011, in response to the state law, the city council rescinded that requirement.

However, the U.S. District Court has since found Act 98 to be unenforceable, based on the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution and the National Labor Relation Act. The court’s decision has been appealed, but currently Act 98 cannot be enforced.

So at its June 4 meeting, the council considered reinstating the CUB agreement requirement. Brief deliberations were highlighted by Jane Lumm’s (Ward 2) objections to the requirement, on philosophical and practical grounds. She pointed to similar pending legislation that might be enacted that would address the court ruling, as well as the possibility that the U.S. District Court’s ruling could be overturned.

Outcome: The council reinstated the CUB requirement, with dissent from Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Communications and Comment

Every city council agenda contains multiple slots for city councilmembers and the city administrator to give updates or make announcements about important issues that are coming before the city council. And every meeting typically includes public commentary on subjects not necessarily on the agenda.

Comm/Comm: Warming Shelter, Community Center

Alluding to the presentation of the historic district awards at the start of the meeting, Orian Zakai told the council she hoped that 40 minutes could also be devoted to the tents of Camp Take Notice and the people who live there and who are about to be evicted. She wanted to talk about the Imagine Community project – a nonprofit organization working to open a 24-hour warming center by next winter. It would also serve as a daytime community center that is open to all. No one should sleep outside in the Michigan winter, she said, and everyone should have a space to explore their creativity. The North Main community offers very limited services, she said. She doesn’t see her group as a charitable organization, but as a hub of creative people who inspire each other and care for each other.

She said that her group’s weekly daytime creative program at the Delonis Center, a shelter at 312 W. Huron, has taught them that it doesn’t take much to bring people together through creativity – all you need is some enthusiasm, some art supplies, some musical instruments, paper and pens, and safe space.

The Imagine Community needs a space of its own, she said, and has approached the city several times about the building owned by the city at 721 N. Main. They’d been given two tours of the building and found it suitable for their intended purposes. Despite many conversations with city officials, she said, the city had informed her group that the city would not consider giving her group the space.

Mary Conway told the council that Camp Take Notice will be soon be dispersed. There are 50 residents, she said, but that number varies on regular basis. Wherever they wind up, she said, they will have needs – bathroom, a tent, a place to eat, a place to get water, a place to wash and clean their clothes. The Delonis Center, she said, can’t help many of the people at Camp Take Notice, because of drug abuse and behavioral problems. But the needs of these people need to be addressed. She said that if the city won’t make the building at 721 N. Main available, the city should at least set up port-a-johns at Liberty Plaza [a city park at the southwest corner of Liberty and Division]. There needs to be an alternative plan, she said, otherwise homeless people are going to interfere with business and tourism. The homeless are residents of Washtenaw County, she said. She said she was joined that night by two residents of Camp Take Notice who are barred from the Delonis Center. Conway invited councilmembers to read some of the poetry that had been written by members of the homeless community at imaginewarmingcenters.org. “We can make them a part of our great city of Ann Arbor,” she concluded.

Alexandra Hoffman followed up on comments from Zakai on the possible use of 721 N. Main. She said she didn’t want to believe that a city would drag along a group of caring citizens in an attempt to frustrate and exhaust them. Her group was not exhausted and won’t give up, she said. She felt it was possible to turn the deserted, wasted space into an opportunity. To change homelessness, you have to change yourself, she told the councilmembers. It’s important to change the focus away from the failures of those who are homeless, she said, and rather turn attention to our communal failing – that someone doesn’t have a place to go for warmth and support.

Lilly Au disputed remarks made by mayor John Hieftje to the effect that no one was being turned away who wanted access to a warming shelter. She talked about the challenges that the homeless face in getting referred to the Dawn Farm treatment program. Right now, she said, it’s just the faith community that takes care of the homeless.

Comm/Comm: Vacancies on Boards/Commissions

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) alerted her colleagues to the fact that John German needs to be reappointed to the city’s environmental commission. There is another vacancy on that commission too, she added. [Briere serves as the city council appointee to that commission.]

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noted that there are still two vacancies on the taxicab board.

Comm/Comm: Crime

City administrator Steve Powers publicly congratulated the Ann Arbor police department on arrests made in connection with graffiti offenses and an armed robbery at the Broadway Party Store.

Comm/Comm: Argo Cascades

City administrator Steve Power reported that on Memorial Day, the city grossed over $72,000 between the Argo and Gallup liveries – as the city was sold out of kayaks.

Comm/Comm: South State Street Corridor

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who is the city council’s representative to the planning commission, reported on a retreat the commission had held recently, focused on the South State Street corridor. The city is currently engaged in a process to study the corridor, from Stimson down to Ellsworth. [For more detail on that retreat, see Chronicle coverage: "South State Corridor Gets a Closer Look"]

Present: Jane Lumm, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sandi Smith, Tony Derezinski, Stephen Kunselman, Marcia Higgins, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor, Carsten Hohnke.

Next council meeting: Monday, June 18, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

By way of illustration of the rates, the drinking water rate for the vast majority of residential customers is tiered, based on usage. For the first 7 “units” of water, the charge is proposed to increase from $1.27 to $1.31. For the next 21 units, the charge is proposed to increase from $2.64 to $2.74 per unit. And for the 17 units after that, the increase is proposed to be from $4.50 to $4.69. For additional amounts more than 45 units, the charge is proposed to increase from $6.50 to $6.78 per unit.

One hundred cubic feet is 748 gallons. So a rate of $1.31 per unit translates to significantly less than a penny a gallon – $0.00175.

Ann Arbor’s tiered rate system was implemented in 2004. Before that, the rate for all usage levels was the same. In 2003, that was $1.97 per unit. In 2004, the lowest tier was dropped to $0.97. This year’s rate for the lowest tier is still less than what the general rate was in 2003. However, basic service charges for water and sewer service were implemented as part of the tiered system – which for  the smallest size 5/8-inch meter are currently $10.57 and  $11.25 per quarter, for  water and sewer, respectively.  The stormwater service charge is $6.77 per quarter. Those service charges did not increase this year.

[Link to Google chart illustrating the history of Ann Arbor water rates] [.jpg of chart showing history of Ann Arbor water rates] [.pdf of water, sewer rates]

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Because the water and sewer rates are part of a city ordinance, the council will need to vote a second and final time on the rates, after a public hearing.

By way of illustration of the rates, the drinking water rate for the vast majority of residential customers is tiered, based on usage. For the first 7 “units” of water, the charge is proposed to increase from $1.27 to $1.31. For the next 21 units, the charge is proposed to increase from $2.64 to $2.74 per unit. And for the 17 units after that, the increase is proposed to be from $4.50 to $4.69. For additional amounts more than 45 units, the charge is proposed to increase from $6.50 to $6.78 per unit.

One hundred cubic feet is 748 gallons. So a rate of $1.31 per unit translates to significantly less than a penny a gallon – $0.00175.

Ann Arbor’s tiered rate system was implemented in 2004. Before that, the rate for all usage levels was the same. In 2003, that was $1.97 per unit. In 2004, the lowest tier was dropped to $0.97. This year’s rate for the lowest tier is still less than what the general rate was in 2003. [Link to Google Chart illustrating the history of Ann Arbor water rates] [.jpg of chart showing history of Ann Arbor water rates]

[.pdf of water, sewer rates]

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]